Alberta Advantage' does not include toddlers and working moms

[Dion]

Daycare spaces are so hard to find that Bradley-Jackson and her husband have to split up their kids. Their three-year-old son will be at her new employer's on-site daycare, but they have to put their six-month-old twin daughters in a day home.

"There are no breaks or subsidies in place for working moms like me," she said in her e-mail, explaining that although she'll be earning $60,000 a year in her new job, she'll be paying almost $3,000 a month for child care -- a hefty portion of her take-home pay.

Bradley-Jackson says she can't afford to stay at home full time and, besides, she wants to work. She'd like the Alberta government to at least match the monthly $100-per-child federal child-care benefit. "I want what was promised ... some 'Alberta Advantage'," she said. "I haven't seen it."

http://edmontonsun.com/News/Columnis...02991-sun.html

[Dion]

First off single moms do need the help but as for the woman in the article.....

I don't understand the mentality of this woman wanting to work AND have kids then expect taxpayers subsidise her for her choice. Was her head in the sand all this time and unaware of the daycare shortages that have been going on for awhile plus the costs associated with it.

She's making $60,000 and says she wants some of that Alberta Advantage and we're supposed to feel sorry for her? Gee i wonder what her husband is pulling in? Give me a break!

My parents made great sacrifices when raising us 3 kids. Mother stayed home with us till we were in school. We only had one car and vacations were always close to home.

Stay home and raise your own damn kids is what i'd tell the woman in the article!

[browna]

Originally Posted by Dion

Daycare spaces are so hard to find that Bradley-Jackson and her husband have to split up their kids. Their three-year-old son will be at her new employer's on-site daycare, but they have to put their six-month-old twin daughters in a day home.

"There are no breaks or subsidies in place for working moms like me," she said in her e-mail, explaining that although she'll be earning $60,000 a year in her new job, she'll be paying almost $3,000 a month for child care -- a hefty portion of her take-home pay.

Bradley-Jackson says she can't afford to stay at home full time and, besides, she wants to work. She'd like the Alberta government to at least match the monthly $100-per-child federal child-care benefit. "I want what was promised ... some 'Alberta Advantage'," she said. "I haven't seen it."

http://edmontonsun.com/News/Columnis...02991-sun.html

Hard to feel sorry for this woman. Her "Alberta Advantage" is her salary which she likely couldn't get doing whatever she does, in another province. Its likely directly relative to the supply and demand, and thus cost, of child care. She could make $30K somewhere else and pay half of the $1500 in child care...relatively speaking she likely doesn't come out any further ahead, the $100 matching or not from the AB government..

Add to this, a combined home income of at least $140K, and the choice made that a) she wants to work and b) the choice to have multiple children, means some sarificies and choices have to be made. ..and those factors should be taken into account before potentially making a silly scene at the legislature, or at very least crying poor to the Sun and sticking yet another hand out to the government, expecting a handout.

[Ro]

Originally Posted by Dion

...she'll be paying almost $3,000 a month for child care...

She'd like the Alberta government to at least match the monthly $100-per-child federal child-care benefit.

Just so I understand, she's hoping to pay ~$2800 for her monthly child care costs instead of the ~$2900 she is currently paying? And she wants me to help pay for that?

Do I have that right? Just checking.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ro

Just so I understand, she's hoping to pay ~$2800 for her monthly child care costs instead of the ~$2900 she is currently paying? And she wants me to help pay for that?

Do I have that right? Just checking.

Don't forget that $2900 is tax deductible.

So her $60k salary is like you earning...I dunno, $70?

People's sense of entitlement is astounding.

[guzzy]

The worst part of articles like this is they fail to mention the two cars she leases, the mortgage on the 2400 sq ft she doesn't really need, the $30,000 wardrobe, and the lavish vacations. That is the Calgary way. Obtain more than thy neighbour at any cost. If I were a mother I would rather downgrade my "materialistic ways" and stay at home.

Go to Saskatchewan if you don't like it.

[Devils'Advocate]

Funny the differences from one side of the country to the other. Daycare in Quebec is $5/day. Government subsidized. There the thinking is that raising children takes a village... that raising children right is the responsibility of society in general, not just of the parents.

When the federal Liberals day care plan fell apart, the Conservatives said that they would replace that with a $100/month child care allowance. With the same idea in hand - that I, as a single guy, should pay part of my taxes, to pay for the child care costs of overextended Canadian families. It's part of putting the money back into Canadian society.

Personally, I think daycare should be like school.... paid for totally by the taxpayer. What is the rationale between keeping kindergarten paid for by the public, but not daycare? Is not the role of the modern daycare to be formative? Either that, or all schools should be private and not paid for by the public at all. Either position seems consistent.

Also, I agree that a woman's place should be in the home!! They do NOT belong in the workplace!!!

[Flames in 07]

why would anyone give that person any airtime? Those poor kids don't stand a chance.

I know it's a little off the main topic of someone who can have such a strong sense of self entitlement and I know its everyone's choice but I don't get why so many people want institutions to raise their kids.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I know it's a little off the main topic of someone who can have such a strong sense of self entitlement and I know its everyone's choice but I don't get why so many people want institutions to raise their kids.

Because fathers (by and large) are not willing to stay home and look after the kids and women are no longer willing to stay home and serve dinner.

And I'm not so sure why daycare is viewed as evil. My aunt runs a small daycare with about 8 kids. The kids learn to socialize well with other children, they learn & develop together and are well taken care of. It doesn't mean the parents are abusing their children... and they still have evenings and weekends with their children. Just because a parent isn't with their child from 8am to 5pm doesn't mean that they don't love their child.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Funny the differences from one side of the country to the other. Daycare in Quebec is $5/day. Government subsidized. There the thinking is that raising children takes a village... that raising children right is the responsibility of society in general, not just of the parents.

When the federal Liberals day care plan fell apart, the Conservatives said that they would replace that with a $100/month child care allowance. With the same idea in hand - that I, as a single guy, should pay part of my taxes, to pay for the child care costs of overextended Canadian families. It's part of putting the money back into Canadian society.

Personally, I think daycare should be like school.... paid for totally by the taxpayer. What is the rationale between keeping kindergarten paid for by the public, but not daycare? Is not the role of the modern daycare to be formative? Either that, or all schools should be private and not paid for by the public at all. Either position seems consistent.

Also, I agree that a woman's place should be in the home!! They do NOT belong in the workplace!!!

That doesn't make any sense to me, you are advocating a subsidy for those who are making more money by working. I know that some people put there children in daycare because they can't afford to not work (single moms, low income etc.) but why should the well off ones automatically be entitled to this?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by fotze

At least you didn;t put in one of your racist diatribes here.

*ponders what the h-e-"double hockey stick" fotze is referring to here*

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

That doesn't make any sense to me, you are advocating a subsidy for those who are making more money by working. I know that some people put there children in daycare because they can't afford to not work (single moms, low income etc.) but why should the well off ones automatically be entitled to this?

I wouldn't be opposed to a rolling subsidy at all. However, the federal Conservatives felt that if one Canadian parent should get the subsidy, then all Canadian parents should get the same. I guess the woman in the article feels the same way. If we are going to share the burden of childing raising across society, it should be shared equally.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Because fathers are not willing to stay home and look after the kids and women are no longer willing to stay home and serve dinner.

And I'm not so sure why daycare is viewed as evil. My aunt runs a small daycare with about 8 kids. The kids learn to socialize well with other children, they learn & develop together and are well taken care of. It doesn't mean the parents are abusing their children... and they still have evenings and weekends with their children. Just because a parent isn't with their child from 8am to 5pm doesn't mean that they don't love their child.

Can you let me know exactly where I said they don't love their kids?

I'm just wondering if you can refer to the post number so I can go back and verify that you don't argue by putting words in the other persons mouth and discredit any view that is different from yours by adding your own words to it and turn it into a big hairy monster. Whenever you argue things has there even been an instance where you don't actively look to put words in other peoples mouth?

Parents can raise their own kids better than any institution any day. I think if you need to work to keep yourself stimulated that is just fine, but if that's the case, then don't have kids.

Some institutions like your aunt's may be great, but they are like everything else, some will be good, some will be ok and some will be awful. Some are have $12/hr employees who really don't like what they are doing and just need the money.

More than any other time, today kids are fat, disrespectful to figures of authority and less socialized. To me there is a direct correlation between that and kids being slotted into evenings and weekends ... or whenever otherwise convenient for their parents to decide to hang around.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by fotze

Its pretty insulting to say anyone who is on the opposite side of the debate is because they think women should not work. So if you can make up things that are completely false, so can I.

But yours is made up out of the blue. There were several people that posted here saying that this woman should quit her job and stay home with her kid.

I'm sick and tired of reading articles in "The Sun" saying that women that don't stay home with their kids should be arrested for child abuse. That op-ed was written by a guy who said that women should be the ones to quit because women are better nurtures than men and men are naturally better providers. There are 64.3 million fathers in the U.S., of which only 159,000 stay at home to raise the kids while women bring in the money. When that proportion evens out a bit, I might think this anti-daycare attitude might be something other than anti-women.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

More than any other time, today kids are fat, disrespectful to figures of authority and less socialized. To me there is a direct correlation between that and kids being slotted into evenings and weekends ... or whenever otherwise convenient for their parents to decide to hang around.

I am fat, disrespectful to figures of authority and less socialized and my mum stayed at home with me. Oh well, I was always kind of a lost cause.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

But yours is made up out of the blue. There were several people that posted here saying that this woman should quit her job and stay home with her kid.

I'm sick and tired of reading articles in "The Sun" saying that women that don't stay home with their kids should be arrested for child abuse. That op-ed was written by a guy who said that women should be the ones to quit because women are better nurtures than men and men are naturally better providers. There are 64.3 million fathers in the U.S., of which only 159,000 stay at home to raise the kids while women bring in the money. When that proportion evens out a bit, I might think this anti-daycare attitude might be something other than anti-women.

Ah ha, at least it's not just me ... you put words into EVERYONES mouth.

OK got it.

Say btw exactly how would this argument be any different than say, my house was robbed by a black guy, therefore all black guys rob houses?

Rest assured, I'm anti daycare, not anti women, either parent can stay home as far as I'm concerned. Any other wide sweeping generalizations or stereotypes you wish to share?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Can you let me know exactly where I said they don't love their kids?

I didn't say that you said that. I just posted it as a statement of fact. Not a claim that anyone said otherwise.

I've seen parents that have stayed home and raised their kids well. I've seen others that have stayed home and raised complete monsters. Just like everything else in the world, there are responsible parents and irresponsible parents.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Parents can raise their own kids better than any institution any day. I think if you need to work to keep yourself stimulated that is just fine, but if that's the case, then don't have kids.

Is that a serious comment?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Is that a serious comment?

No it wasn't I really think we should ship kids off to 3rd party institutions to be developed.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Say btw exactly how would this argument be any different than say, my house was robbed by a black guy, therefore all black guys rob houses?

They don't? Huh, you learn something new every day.

My Fiancee wants to stay at home with the kids and I am pretty excited about that.