Alberta Advantage' does not include toddlers and working moms

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

No, 2 income families should realize that for about 5 years until school starts that raising their own kid is more important than their career. Careers are not more important than kids.

I cannot believe how selfish this argument is.

and sometimes in order to keep your mortgage paid, you have no choice but to keep both parents working. We don't really give a crap about careers, we want to keep food on our table and a roof over our heads.

And I find it absolutely hilarious that a person with no kids is hoisting this argument up there. The person in the article, as has been said by most here already, is a joke. But you telling me I'm selfish because I want my kids to be able to live in a decent home is a bunch of hogwash.

[Ice]

I've been both a working mother and a stay at home mom. I couldn't afford to not work when my kids were babies, but I wanted to have my kids when I was young. My kids were in a very loving home day care until I was financially able to leave my 60,000 per year job. (Say what you want about sacrafices, but in California, that wasn't a ridiculously high salary) In hindsight, I think it was better that I was at home full time when my kids started kindergarten. Volunteering at school and being able to get them to baseball, soccer, hockey, etc. would've been impossible when I worked and they didn't have those activities when they were babies/toddlers. Sure, it would've been nice to be home with them their entire life, but I don't think its selfish or a character flaw to have kids knowing that both parents will still need to work. Now that my kids are older (middle school) I went back to work part time. I drop them off at school, go to work and leave work in time to pick them up at school. This way I'm earning a little money, doing something besides housework and shopping, yet they still have a parent at home after school. I'm lucky my husband has been able to financially support our family on one income so I have the luxury of finding a job that meets my availability and it doesn't need to be as high paying as what I left. But not everyone is so lucky, and with it becoming more and more expensive to live, its very unfair to claim a working mother is selfish for not staying home with her kids. Unfortunately, the woman referenced in this article is not representative of most working mothers out there. Most mothers would probably quit and stay home if the financial implications were minimal and all it took was a few sacrafices to pull it off.

Why does this woman need anything subsidized? Aren't daycare payments tax deductible anyway?

[tete]

habernac - right on.

I'm going to wade in with an opinion from someone who does not have penis. I know for some of you closed minded boys that yes, women do have opinions too and sometimes do express them. I know it's not my place as a woman, but I'm doing to do it here.

I just don't get some of the opinions here. 1) That there should always be a parent (preferably a woman since they're more of the caring folk) at home with children. So where does that leave single parents? Flamesin07, you bemoan the lack of a father figure in the lives of some of the kids you see - where would daycare or the lack thereof help this? Apart from fathers staying home (which I think is awesome if it works), where are you going to get more family cohesion if the father or mother has to stay at work longer hours just to make ends meet? That's not going to encourage anything other than absentee parents.

2) Going back to work early. That sucks for ones who have to do this. For some professions, it's a necessity. It's essential in some professions to stay constantly at the top of your field. The more time off, the harder it is to break back in. Doctors, accountants, professors - all of these still have very patriarchal views of work. And it's very tough for a woman to keep up in these professions if they take time too much time off work.

3) A woman's role in society. Should women pursue post-secondary education and careers if they are encouraged never to return to work after having children? What would this do to the current labour shortage we have here in Alberta? Should women only take education that can easily be dropped and picked up after 10 years of time off? Should they only look for husbands who wish to stay home so that they can keep pursuing a career they enjoy? Or should we just not marry or have children because we enjoy a life outside the home? And make this decision at 18? Oh, I"m sorry, I didn't plan my life out that well.

Some women LOVE staying at home. They find it a completely fulfilling, life altering experience. They give their children 150% of their lives. But surprisingly enough, so do dual working parents. To say that parents callously drop kids off in daycares without a thought is baseless and frankly, insulting. Parents spend a lot of time finding caregivers who will give their kids a wonderful experience - sometimes much more than a stay at home parent can. A good parent is someone who knows their limitations and their strengths. Not everyone can be a good stay at home parent.

I know I'll get attacked on this post - I"m not as eloquent as some people. I should also post a disclaimer that I do not have children yet, but am married and hope to have one soon, God willing. It will be a tough decision for me when the time comes to go back to work or not, and I'll never judge someone who decides either way. I just hope we can help all families out with the costs of raising a child.

[photon]

My wife and I worked really hard to set it up so that one of us could be home full time, and even then I feel we were lucky to be able to do it. Now that he's a year away from school age we've got him in day home a few days a week and I am home with him the other days, he needs to socialize more and work up to a more structured setting.

[AFireInside]

Honestly, you chose to have kids deal with it. Now I don't agree that there has to be a parent who stays home. That is ridiculous and completely impractical for most, ESPECIALLY in Calgary.

What should be happening is those that have household incomes as high as this woman likely does (her and her husband combined) should be getting squat, they should save the money that goes to people like this and give more to those that truly need it. Now I'm not sure if the article mentions she has a husband, if she is a single parent then it might be tougher to make it Calgary with kids on that salary. Unfortunately there are sacrifices that come with having kids and no one said it would be easy. I'm sure there were many times where my parents did not have a ton of money between paydays after everything was all paid for. I'm not having kids but myself and my gf make good money (over 100K between us) but there is no way we could afford kids if we wanted them. Luckily neither of us want children.

I chose to go to university and collect a nice big student loan. I want taxpayers to subsidize my federal student loans that are left over, but that's not happening. On top of paying it back I'm getting dinged a ton of interest almost double that which the gov't borrowed it at. Is it fair? Nope, but I chose it and things will be a little tight money wise for little while.

Where is my Alberta advantage, honestly I don't see much advantage unless you have little education and are working out on the rigs. Sure I would make less elsewhere but I'd pay less to live there so it pretty much evens out.

Although it is tougher getting into my field in other places (property assessment) so I guess that is my advantage.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by fotze

Really?

I hear people at work all the time say "I can't afford xyz" but I think they really mean "I don't want to spend money on xyz", or "I cannot afford xyz and the other things I spend money on". All these are truthful statements and nothing wrong with saying any of them but I just have a different definition of not being able to afford something. I think not being able to afford something means if you realign your lifestyle and spending to a very thrifty amount, you still would not be able to make ends meet and you would start to go in the hole to an unmanageable amount.

I do think its completely alright for people who do not want kids to not have them.

To be honest we still spend like we are in University. Our expenses are Student loans, car payments and rent. I drove a crap car that I had gotten in university for free for the past 4 years. When I had to start putting money into it, it made no sense to keep it. So I just got a new car last month. My Gf did her masters degree in physio so her student loans are very large and physio's don't get paid that great in Alberta. It seems she would make the same no matter where she went so it makes little sense for her to stay in Alberta. Unfortunately I have to stay as I have a very good work situation here, otherwise we'd be long gone from Alberta.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by fotze

Crazy, must be huge student loans.

Mine are not all that bad, about $20,000, and I worked all through school, and the last year - year and a half worked two jobs.

The majority of my gf's came from her masters program. 10,000 just for tuition per year.

Hers are WAY more than mine.

[mmanzz]

Parents in Europe are heavily subsidized to stay home. May i suggest, the idea that she can work and get bags of money is not acceptable. However, parents who stay home should be rewarded!!Healthy children are a benefit to all members of society. Psycho kids who maim and kill are the product of a society that disregards children.

[Muta]

I'm about to start an MBA program within the next year that's about $40,000 in tuition - that's BEFORE living expenses, and all the other associated costs. Plus, it's in a completely new city / country.

Needless to say, children will be the LAST thing on my mind for the next 8-10 years. And I'm 25. I'm just too selfish to think about having a kid with my girlfriend anytime soon... and that's the way it should be. If you aren't 150% ready to deal with the consequences, DON'T DO IT.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by mmanzz

Parents in Europe are heavily subsidized to stay home. May i suggest, the idea that she can work and get bags of money is not acceptable. However, parents who stay home should be rewarded!!Healthy children are a benefit to all members of society. Psycho kids who maim and kill are the product of a society that disregards children.

Can you please show me the documented proof that putting kids in daycare make them maim and kill. Both my parents worked during my formative years and I stayed with a neighbor and her kids from 8 to 4. I have yet to kill anybody. But wild claims like this do drive me beyond "irritable".

[Ashartus]

To me the problem with daycare in Alberta isn't the cost - it's the lack of spaces. I have no problem with paying for daycare if my wife decides to go back to work - that's just one of the factors that goes into making the decision. The problem right now is that there aren't enough daycare spaces - there are basically no spaces for children under 18 months, and even for older children there isn't much unless you work for a big corporation (a lot of them have deals where the children of their employees get priority at daycares). I don't think there's an easy short-term solution for this problem though.

[RougeUnderoos]

We bitch and moan a lot about the labor shortage (we can even blame the daycare shortage on it) but then turn around and say "there's no goddamn way I'm paying for someone's daycare so they can go to work".

If we want people working, which we do, we might have to pony up a little so their kids are looked after.

Somebody else mentioned this but I don't know that anyone responded -- we pay for school and nobody complains, but we won't pay for daycare. Why not? Take a kid that is 5 years old right now. On Friday he was in daycare (paid by mom and dad). Tomorrow he's in kindergarten (thanks, Alberta!).

What's the difference?

They probably couldn't have come up with a worse example than the woman they put in this article though. My guess is she's friends with the reporter. And talk about minimum wage -- the woman is making 60 grand a year (before taxes) and paying 36 grand for daycare. What is she clearing after that? 10 or 12 grand a year? Stay home. Give the spot to someone who needs it.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm about to start an MBA program within the next year that's about $40,000 in tuition - that's BEFORE living expenses, and all the other associated costs. Plus, it's in a completely new city / country.

Needless to say, children will be the LAST thing on my mind for the next 8-10 years. And I'm 25. I'm just too selfish to think about having a kid with my girlfriend anytime soon... and that's the way it should be. If you aren't 150% ready to deal with the consequences, DON'T DO IT.

Agreed 100%..

[Bagor]

The article also fails to mention whether or not the lady claimed the $1500 total of contributions for her 3 kid's RESP plan. An Alberta advantage in itself.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

We bitch and moan a lot about the labor shortage (we can even blame the daycare shortage on it) but then turn around and say "there's no goddamn way I'm paying for someone's daycare so they can go to work".

If we want people working, which we do, we might have to pony up a little so their kids are looked after.

Somebody else mentioned this but I don't know that anyone responded -- we pay for school and nobody complains, but we won't pay for daycare. Why not? Take a kid that is 5 years old right now. On Friday he was in daycare (paid by mom and dad). Tomorrow he's in kindergarten (thanks, Alberta!).

What's the difference?

Those are weird slippery slopes for the socialist set. I've never quite got it.

Moms should be encouraged to work. Except for mat leave. Take a kid 1 year old. On friday the only place he should be is with mom. On Monday he's better off in state institutions so mom can work?

The school argument I get. The difference is in instruction. the assumption is everyone in school needs to learn certain things and only teachers can teach this. Maybe that's crap, I dunno.

But how do you extend that? Should 3 year olds have a cirriculum? 1 year olds? Maybe we should ditch parents altogether. It's close to the point now where most women HAVE to work because we pay so much tax. A little nudge and we can remove all choice completely.

I'd like to see more women have a choice. Work or not based on their individual choice and circumstances. The government should support that - not make the choice for them.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by habernac

and sometimes in order to keep your mortgage paid, you have no choice but to keep both parents working. We don't really give a crap about careers, we want to keep food on our table and a roof over our heads.

And I find it absolutely hilarious that a person with no kids is hoisting this argument up there. The person in the article, as has been said by most here already, is a joke. But you telling me I'm selfish because I want my kids to be able to live in a decent home is a bunch of hogwash.

It's always a choice. Always. Sometimes people think about the choice a little too late, but it's always a choice.

I don't' have kids because we decided if we were to have kids we believe someone had to stay home ... and neither of us wanted to. Parenting was either a first priority or we just wouldn't do it ... otherwise it felt like half a$$ing it which is ok for some things ,but not being a parent.

We think if we had kids, and slotted them in to evenings and weekends or whenever convenient, that felt selfish. And still feel that way. Having kids or not doesn't give me any less right to feel that full time parenting is important ... I wonder if everyone who tries to colour this argument as being either anti women or you only get an opinion if you have kids just want to keep the argument away from what to me really obvious. Parents can parent their kids better than institutions can, and maybe some people just don't want to deal with that because they make the choice to comprimise part of their kids upbringing for a better quality of life financially.

That actually is a tough decision to make, you comprise or better eliminate one option of your life because you don't think you can do a 10 out of 10 job to me takes discipline and a high standard ... to you I guess that means I get no opinion. But millions of people decide to have kids as a secondary pastime as something that entertains them when convenient for the parents. That to me is one of the most selfish things a human can decide to do.

I don't know about everyone but I've seen tons of parents who drop off their kids to sports in their infiniti, so for many its not about financial survival ... it's about the infiniti. And if it is about financial survival then maybe Calgary is the wrong city to be in.

[photon]

No one disagrees that there are poor parents out there that put achievement ahead of their kids.. however I get the impression that you are saying saying that a house where both parents work is always that way. And that's simply not true.

It's not black and white, one or the other. There's great parents who both work because they have to, but they do the best they can.

Parents can parent their kids better than institutions can

Disagree, you're making a blanket statement when it's not a black and white issue. Anyone who's had kids knows that no one is born knowing how to parent well, whereas institutions provide support and knowledge that is otherwise difficult to come by.

I know personally of a number of cases where an institution helped a child become more balanced and well adjusted.

Of course the mother put the child in there with full knowledge that that was the goal, and that the institution was well equipped and experienced to accomplish that goal. So it wasn't a case of "dumping the child" into child storage...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Parents can parent their kids better than institutions can, and maybe some people just don't want to deal with that because they make the choice to comprimise part of their kids upbringing for a better quality of life financially.

I've asked before in this thread and I'm going to have to ask again: Can you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE provide some kind of link to studies showing that kids that go to daycare centres become juvenile delinquents, or as the other poster stated, murderers?

You seem to be pinning your argument on anecdotal "evidence" and I want to see some hard proof.

[Fire]

If there were only one income households the prices of houses would be significantly less, thus making it a lot more affordable to have one parent stay home with the kids.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by photon

No one disagrees that there are poor parents out there that put achievement ahead of their kids.. however I get the impression that you are saying saying that a house where both parents work is always that way. And that's simply not true.

It's not black and white, one or the other. There's great parents who both work because they have to, but they do the best they can.



Disagree, you're making a blanket statement when it's not a black and white issue. Anyone who's had kids knows that no one is born knowing how to parent well, whereas institutions provide support and knowledge that is otherwise difficult to come by.

I know personally of a number of cases where an institution helped a child become more balanced and well adjusted.

Of course the mother put the child in there with full knowledge that that was the goal, and that the institution was well equipped and experienced to accomplish that goal. So it wasn't a case of "dumping the child" into child storage...

Well to me almost anyone who WANTED to be a good parent, or really WANTED to be good at something ... can. If you dedicate yourself to something you can be good at it. I wasn't naturally good at connecting with 10 year olds but after some committment I figured that out ... and now have a large folder full of letters from parents thanking me for being about to communicate with their kids in ways nobody has ... if you are truly dedicated to something ... you can figure it out. So to me a parent is still a better option than a institution (special needs kids and other unique situations notwithstanding).

You are right it's tough to use blanket statements, but when it all boils down, society has now decided that careers are more important than parenting. To me someone who is at home has a more important 'career' than anyone else on the planet ... but that view is becomming more and more of a minority, which is sad ... and to me, selfish.