Childcare Reform Act (Debating)

[Talleyrand]

I think that we should be more cautious. No Atlasian child should grow up in poverty, but we have a basic income for that. As long as social programs are sufficient to guarantee that Atlasian families are materially secure, why should we want all parents to work?

Of course it's easy to characterize the assumptions behind this question as backwards and sexist, but that's not the sense in which I ask  it. Whether it is mothers who fathers who choose to stay at home, that's not the point. What concerns me is the implicit assumption behind this legislation, i.e. the assumption that every functioning adult should hold a job and that failing to commodify one's labor is deviant behavior and somehow less respectable than other forms of work, like caring for one's own children.

At the very least, if we're going to subsidize childcare heavily for families in which both parents work, we ought to do something that will provide a commensurate benefit to families in which a parent stays at home to raise their children.

What exactly would you propose for that then?

[bore]

Well part of the reason (the other, massive one being cost) I decided to reduce the subsidy was to keep some sort of fiscal incentive for not using organised childcare, via sharing kids with friends or relatives or taking holidays and arranging schedules to be off during holidays. I don't want and the intention is not to make it too easy just to dump their kids.

[Cranberry]

I might be misunderstanding your post, Cranberry, but I strongly disagree with the idea that debates about values are inappropriate for the Senate. Every bill of importance that we discuss here involves value judgments. We don't elect Senators to be "neutral" makers of policy, nor can they be. Whether this bill fails, succeeds, or passes in some other form, the Senate will be making an implicit statement about what a family ought to be.

This might be the case, but only to an extent I imagine. My intent was not to state that any discussion about values should be completely shut out of Senate debate, not at all. I simply affirmed by belief that I think that discussions about values should include the public to a far bigger extent than the public involvement a normal bill sees. In real life, such discussions and, as you say, statements about what things ought to be, spur massive public interest and involvement, and rightly so, as it are those values that shape our society to the core. In Atlasia, we need to mirror this to the closest extent possible, as just the same as in real life applies here as well. In the end, we are going to (re)shape a part of what makes Atlasia Atlasia, and I want the public to be heavily involved in this process.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

To be honest, while I agree that the vice president makes a strong point, I'm just a bit leery of handing out money to more social programs in general. We have a huge social support net in this country already. Services do cost money because the work does have value (whether you're a fan of the commodification of labour or not). So since we have done quite a bit to put money in the pockets of the people at the bottom of the social ladder, what is wrong with asking them to pay for a service?

I am totally okay with giving a little bit of help, but we can't cover everything. Especially since we already do cover so much.

[windjammer]

The result of the vote:
Aye (4): Talleyrand, Cris, Hagrid, Yankee
Nay (4): Windjammer, Cranberry, TNF, Blair
Abstain (1): Polnut
Non voting (1): Lief

There is a tie and the VP needs to break this tie.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have long been in favor of expanding the minimum income, though preferably as a substitute for the higher levels of the minimum wage. I think such an approach would be more efficient economically and allow more people to get to work whilst ensuring that people get a fair amount of compensation for their work.

As for this bill right here, I do sympathize with the point made by Nix and that we should not encourage parental abandonment, as that can be a critical factor in the growth and developement of a child. I do think some of the formulaic approach who gets support and what incomes shall do some good in resolving that problem, but admitedly the problem does still exist.

I also can see Hagrid's point that the presence of the the gov't subsidy is what creates the incentive in the first place. Branching off of his argument, I worry that we could also see massive inflation in the costs of childcare similar to the sharp rise in tuition in the era of massive subsidization. The presence of such eliminates the price competition as a factor and thereby removes the downard presures on costs. We have seen this push tuition rates to sky high levels and this could do the same as well. The best answer to this is ensuring some degree of price competition and ensuring that the inflationary effects still cause a countering downard pressure in the form of a competitor winning the service instead as a result. I am uncertain as to how well the present numbers will preserve such price competition.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What could be done is to make clear an hourly or daily rate that will be payable. Making sure that we don't say "here's some money, do as you please" and instead say "here's what we're willing to pay per child per hour or day of care" - would perhaps limit the risks of inflation.

[windjammer]

Bore's amendment has been adopted.

[bore]

I do sympathise with the argument about inflation that yankee puts forward, but I would like to make two important points here:

Firstly, the alternative to having a percentage subsidy is a certain amount of money, and, barring some cost of living formula which would be an administrative nightmare, that would lead to people in cities being hit the hardest, while in cheaper areas people would get almost full cover.

The other point is childcare is not university, for one thing the cost of setting them up and shutting them down is negligible, whereas we couldn't just abolish yale. The other is childcare doesn't have an aura about it. The market for higher education is incredibly inefficient partly because so much of it is down to reputation. Yale can charge as much as it likes because it's reputation is such that people will still be willing to pay it, but if I was to set up a university of the same quality from scratch, the prices would have to be much lower. Whereas people just want their child to be somewhere safe and fun anf cheap.

As well though, and this probably needs some clarification, I envisage this act guaranteeing parents a childcare place, not the childcare place they necessarily would choose if money was no object, in the same way a local authority guarantees a place at a school, not one at the best school in the region. If a childcare centre charges too much the relevant authority could simply stop sending children to it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not criticizing the presence of a percentage, in fact it is undoubtedly a better approach with regards to the inflation concern then say that of an overal sum as Polnut has referenced. I would support his strict basis, which I think can chart a middle course between simplicity on the one hand and dealing with the inflation concern on the other.

Mr. President, do you think it totally impossible for childcare facilities to garner a certain reputation and thus have a similar, if not quite to the same extent, effect as the aura of a prestigious institution of higher learning?

[bore]

I am not criticizing the presence of a percentage, in fact it is undoubtedly a better approach with regards to the inflation concern then say that of an overal sum as Polnut has referenced. I would support his strict basis, which I think can chart a middle course between simplicity on the one hand and dealing with the inflation concern on the other.

Mr. President, do you think it totally impossible for childcare facilities to garner a certain reputation and thus have a similar, if not quite to the same extent, effect as the aura of a prestigious institution of higher learning?

Not impossible, but very unlikely, and if it did it would only be a very small factor.  Really though the important point is the in the third paragraph. This wouldn't be a matter of parents choosing some childcare and then the state giving a generous discount (which I agree would be ripe for abuse) but a matter of the state offering the parents some childcare, and the parents deciding based on that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The experience I have with friends etc with children in childcare is that there very much is a hierarchy of facilities. Parents will register their children at X Centre as soon they know they're pregnant. And this isn't isolated.

But that's more for infants - childcare/activity centres for older children aren't that problematic

[Cranberry]

People are seriously pandering about which Kindergarten is better for their kiddoes?

But to come back to topic, bore does make the most sensible and important point here: We are not subsidising parents to send their children to a childcare facility of their choice, let's say the one at the local country club; but we are offering every child a place at the logistically cheapest, nearest facility. There is a difference between that and college loans, and it is precisely this difference that generated the problems associated with college loans, and thus, this programme will not entail the same problems. 

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm sorry for my lack of participation here, but I still don't really know if this is worth the expense considering the vast benefits and support we already give.

Is something like this really not on the books already?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

People are seriously pandering about which Kindergarten is better for their kiddoes?

But to come back to topic, bore does make the most sensible and important point here: We are not subsidising parents to send their children to a childcare facility of their choice, let's say the one at the local country club; but we are offering every child a place at the logistically cheapest, nearest facility. There is a difference between that and college loans, and it is precisely this difference that generated the problems associated with college loans, and thus, this programme will not entail the same problems.  

Yes, but are you resting all of that on the words "Reasonably local"? I also don't see anything about cheapest in the text, but maybe I am missing it somewhere.

[Cranberry]

People are seriously pandering about which Kindergarten is better for their kiddoes?

But to come back to topic, bore does make the most sensible and important point here: We are not subsidising parents to send their children to a childcare facility of their choice, let's say the one at the local country club; but we are offering every child a place at the logistically cheapest, nearest facility. There is a difference between that and college loans, and it is precisely this difference that generated the problems associated with college loans, and thus, this programme will not entail the same problems.  

Yes, but are you resting all of that on the words "Reasonably local"? I also don't see anything about cheapest in the text, but maybe I am missing it somewhere.

No, you are right about that. Considering this though, those facilities should, if private, meet some criteria, as they will basically be funded for the major part by federal spending if those reforms are passed - so to say not to through out money for the last dump traceable.

[bore]

It's true that it doesn't say anything about cheapest (though we could put that in- and if we do that we'd have to specify a few minimum standards) but I can't imagine the people running this would deliberately offer places at really expensive places instead of cheap ones.

[Talleyrand]

Yes, it's pretty clear that the bureaucrats administering this would choose adequate, affordable childcare, not the luxury ones or their like. I'm willing to allocate the funds (which we've already reduced in amount) if it means making it easier for families to work without having to constantly worry about their children.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, it's pretty clear that the bureaucrats administering this would choose adequate, affordable childcare, not the luxury ones or their like.

Why is such clear? Bureacrats act under the guidelines they are restricted to. If they are not then such guidelines will be determined by mid level and maybe higher officials who may be subjected to bias either of a personal nature or as a result of outside pressure.

[Cranberry]

Yankee does have a point with that, yes. I guess if we included provisions that state they should search the logistically cheapest, which however must fulfil xyz criteria, that wouldn't be the dumbest thing to do.

[Talleyrand]

Or you could just include a provision forcing the federal DoIA to set the guidelines for that.

[Blair]

Or you could just include a provision forcing the federal DoIA to set the guidelines for that.

I'd be more than happy to do that

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yankee does have a point with that, yes. I guess if we included provisions that state they should search the logistically cheapest, which however must fulfil xyz criteria, that wouldn't be the dumbest thing to do.

I'm glad this issue was raised. Hopefully, by making it very very clear through regulations below this Bill what kind of centres will be supported. But at the same time, do we have a clear mechanism as to who this will be provided?

Public servants allocate a child-care centre? Parents have the capacity to have some choice in the matter? Which is kind of why I wanted more of a direct subsidy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How about you give people a subsidy, assuming the subsidy format is used, an amount equivalent to said percentages of the cost at daycare matching said X,Y,Z criteria. Parents still have choice and at the same time will be limited as far as the subisdy goes with amount said daycare costs, versus the quality delivered of coursed.