Holy child care gouging, Batman!

THE DAY-CARE SITUATION IN QUEBEC

Government subsidized $7.00-a-day daycare exists in Quebec but it’s an open system, i.e., regardless what the income of the parent(s) might be the fee is only $7.00 per day. This has led to those making $100,000 and up paying their $7.00-a-day as well as others making much less. This in turn has led to a long waiting list for subsidized day-care places and those who can’t wait pay up to $25 or $30 a day at private day-cares.

The present debate in Quebec revolves around what seems to be a reasonable solution. While instead of simply placing a ceiling on the incomes of those parents using $7.00 a day-care, those who run the private day- cares (“les guarderies”) want to absorb the waiting list and, in return, have the province fund the subsidized $7.00 fee. The increase in numbers would swell the incomes of the private day-cares and eliminate the waiting list but the government, perhaps fearing a tidal wave of newly subsidized day-cares places, has not yet moved on the issue.

In addition to purely financial considerations, there does seem to be a social justice reason for subsidizing the private day-cares, well illustrated by the poster’s complaint, one which involves allowing often single mothers to work full-time, pay the $7.00 fee, avoid unemployment and/or welfare, and contribute to the economy. There is also a strong human-dignity element in the issue as well.

Good luck to “Help Wanted.” It sounds like a nasty bind she’s in.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

A LITTLE HOUSECLEANING

Dear Help Wanted,

Well, it looks like the usual right-wing rednecks are out in force. With a few exceptions, where their posts are not incoherent, irrelevant or beside the point, they resort to the usual tactic of blaming the victim, i.e., you. You CHOSE to have the child, they shout, and therefore it’s your fault so stop whining! But there is nothing in your bitch about the circumstances resulting in your having a child – it could have been spousal divorce, death, desertion, or even just an accident. But that doesn’t matter for the rednecks. YOU ARE TO BLAME!

I thought it might be fun to take a fast look at some of the more fatuous comments, so let’s go:

: Dim Bro Tim (03/06, 4:50PM): When day-care is socialized then the cost will go to over $100 a day. Any evidence? Are you kidding?

: Stephen Harper (5:00PM): “Having kids is a CHOICE!” Is it? See my intro above? “Blame the Victim!”

: canned (6:28PM): The first paragraph is incoherent – he’s “not sure that a per diem would improve the tradeoffs faced by low income mothers” whatever that might mean. The second paragraph, predictably, is “Blame the Victim!”

: koda (10:02PM): Incoherent. No planning. “Blame the Victim!”

: Pretty Kitty ((03/07, 1:09AM): “Blame the Victim!” You can’t compare Quebec and Nova Scotia. Any evidence? Are you kidding? Quebec has the largest debt per capita in Canada, as well, of course, as the highest taxes in North America. Without the transfer payments we’d be out of sight.

: Naveed (5:07AM): It’s your “spawn” Help Wanted, didn’t you know? “Blame the Victim!”

: The Dribbler (9:57AM): “Quebec is not part of Canada so it’s totally irrelevant.” What a mug.

: funnygirl (12:51PM) : “Blame the Victim!”

: More (3:27PM): “Blame the Victim!”

: tj902 (5:58PM) : “Blame the Victim!”

: Sodypop (9:51PM): “Blame the Victim!”

: Reg Le Crisp (11:13PM): “Blame the Victim!”

: Boru (11:41PM): Incoherent.

: Pretty Kitty (03/08, 5:57AM): Irrelevant.

: Brawdove (2:30PM): Why, Brawdove, why? What do you have besides nothing to offer?

So Help Wanted, you’ve got to remember that this is a reactionary right-wing site where even the suggestion of government subsidized day-care raises the specter of unspeakable socialism. Although the actual circumstances surrounding the birth of your child were never made explicit, you must understand that IT IS STILL YOUR FAULT! YOU ARE THE VICTIM BUT YOU WILL STILL BE BLAMED! But don’t worry. I’m on your side.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Good afternoon, Help Wanted.

I trust your lunch was satisfactory.

It appears that a few stragglers want to continue to challenge me on the question of the admission of your child to affordable low-cost day-care. One hopes that new reasons will be forthcoming to support their objection to such admission but, of course considering the reduced cognitive capacity of most of them, one must not get one’s hopes up too high. Oh well, let’s see what they have to say.

: P/ (03/09, 10:21AM)

Now this is ironic, HW. P/ claims that I am attempting to avoid engaging the commenters in “actual conversation”.
Now, if anyone has never engaged in “actual conversation” with anyone it is P/ himself whose comments are usually simple variations on “fuck you” or even, as in the case of 10:36AM, reduced to some incomprehensible letter code. I guess “troll” and “D” constitute “conversation” for P/ but, of course, not for me (or any other rational individual).

: The Ivan Has Landed (10:28AM)

Here’s another one, HW. He claims that I don’t engage the commenters in conversation. To support his claim he posts an attachment. I don’t know what’s in the attachment because I don’t open them, his or anyone else’s. In addition to finding attachment’s fatuous fluff and often crude I’ve always thought HW, that if someone has something to say they should, um, go ahead and say it where, of course by “saying it” I mean not just uttering a brain fart but give actually giving reasons in support of their assertion. I’m sure you agree with that HW. It’s just being rational.

: canned (1:53PM)

Contrary to his claim HW, I understood both his question very well and the fact that his “facts” he cited were, indeed, irrelevant to his argument. His “facts” were those of a blinkered, bean-counting, econometric and mechanistic technocrat but the question never concerned such simple mechanical “trade-offs” for low-income parents. Rather, the real question was that of “social justice” which I see he now wishes to discuss. Well, let’s do so.

(1) “Would replacing an income-tested child care subsidy with a universal per diem reduce social injustice?”
Let’s look at the case of HW. Unless one is to count welfare/employment insurance as “income,” she doesn’t have an income so the income-tested child-care subsidy would be irrelevant for her and those like her. In other words, a universal per diem would indeed reduce social injustice for those in her circumstances. In still other words, HW would have to get a job to qualify for an income-tested subsidy and this is precisely what she cannot now get and so the per diem rate would indeed reduce social injustice.

(2) “If so, what principles of social justice favor a per diem over an income-tested subsidy. Please include a definition of social justice.” The guiding principle favouring a per diem over an income-tested subsidy, as indicated in #1, is that of universality. Social justice – if it is indeed to be social justice and not some sort of simulacrum – demands impartial universality in its application. My definition of social justice is identical to that of Fourier, the 19th. century French socialist who maintained that simply it consists of, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” If you can do better, here’s your chance.

But all of this is overhead traffic. You have offered a formal distinction which doesn’t distinguish. Who knows in theory whether a per diem as opposed to an income-tested subsidy reduces social injustice? Your contrast is, in fact, itself irrelevant. It’s all very nice to compare and contrast a per diem day-care rate as opposed to an income-tested subsidy but the issue on the ground is HW’s inability to obtain affordable day-care for her child so that she could both provide for him and provide a sense of dignity and purpose for herself. That is and always was the issue. It’s called “social justice.” I hope you are able to comprehend that but, given your “argument,” it appears that my hopes may well be misplaced.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: P/ (03/10, 2:44PM)

Read my reply (03/10, 10:22AM) to yours (03/09, 5:46PM) over again. Try not to move your lips. If you have difficulties either in vocabulary (i.e., “book words”) or in general comprehension, do not hesitate to ask.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Good morning HW.

I trust you slept well.

It looks like we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel this morning HW so it’s just a matter, to change the metaphor, of tying up loose ends. Who’s up first? Ah, it’s Dim Bro Tim.

: Dim Bro Tim (03/10, 3:54PM)

For God’s sake Dim Bro, have a little class. Try not to advertize your flatulence!

: canned (03/10, 3:54PM)

Hello! Who’s this? Why, it’s the Accountant! Well, well HW, let’s see what he has to say.

The first thing to note is that he doesn’t say much. All the Accountant does is to blame the reader for not understanding his definition of “social justice” – a perfectly reasonable position in view of the fact that he never gave one – and then claims that we must “read between the lines” to grasp the profundity of his insight into the nature of social justice. Okay, what’s between the lines?

Well HW, the Accountant wants us to know that social justice consists of “anything that enhances welfare (well being, total consumption, etc) is also socially just.” How would you deal with that, HW? Right! The first thing you might ask is, just what does the “also” refer to? The Accountant never specified anything else that might be read “between the lines” so what’s he talking about? That’s called incoherence HW, a fact I’m sure you already are aware of. Okay, what’s your next line of attack?

That’s right HW! Social justice does NOT simply refer to ANYTHING that enhances welfare but rather it involves a great deal more, specifically an appeal to the principle of “distributive justice.” Look at that word “justice” in the phrase “social justice.” What does it mean? That’s right, HW! It means “fairness”. But what is fairness? Right again HW, fairness is the operative principle underlying operation of distributive justice and, in the present context, is the principle serving to allocate affordable day-care places which are not infinite in number. In other words, a criterion is required to adjudicate such distribution. What is that criterion? As I claimed in a previous post, the criterion is that of “greatest need”. In your case, HW, it consists of the justice of your claim, given your contextualizing circumstances, to low-cost day-care. So what’s next?

Well, here we come to the nub of the issue, HW. The Accountant’s claim to the effect that one needs to know “the empirics of things” to say anything relevant about how social injustice is to be alleviated is to get the issue precisely wrong. “The “empirics of things” tell us nothing. It is the principle determining the distribution of those “empirics” which is the operative factor. In other words, “the empirics of things” is parasitic on the principle of social justice, not the other way around. But the Accountant, being an accountant – and also, no doubt unknowingly, being a philosophical empiricist as well since the terms are interchangeable – is unable to grasp this fundamental truth. The level of his understanding stops at “the empirics of things.” He lives at the empirical (i.e. strictly “measurable”) level. His view, in other words, is ethically lobotomized.

Better luck next time.

Well, HW, that should about do it. I’ll drop by this afternoon to make sure there are still no bullies around. Have a good lunch. You might want to try a little vintage Riesling.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Good afternoon Help Wanted.

I trust your lunch was satisfactory and you acted on my suggestion to accompany it with a glass of Riesling.

As a result of my philosophical analyses things appear to be calming down. There’s no sign of the Accountant so it looks like he’s accepted my spanking as his due. He’s learned his lesson, i.e., when engaging Montrealman it’s always a good idea to have your philosophical ducks lined up in a row. Well HW, who’s first? Oh no, not P/!

: P/ ( 03/11, 10:10AM)

I think we’ve hit a new low in incoherence, HW. It might be called “textual incoherence,” one where his post, while only a couple of lines, fails to convey his meaning. He writes,

“Why you do it, it’s ‘Philosophy.’
When I do it, it’s different.”

Did P/ mean to start the first sentence with the word “When?” Who knows? Although in either case – “Why” or “When” – he is quite correct. Why (When) I do it, it is indeed Philosophy. (No scare quotes necessary.) I engage the mind of the other, analyze his assumptions, and test them against the criteria of rationality. That’s called doing Philosophy.

In contrast, where P/ does it, it is indeed different. The question obviously is, of just what does that “difference” consist? Clearly, when P/ does it, it is without thought, without reflection, without careful analysis. But what is it, you ask. Sadly, it is only a brain fart. Nothing more, nothing less (as if there COULD BE anything less). Who’s next, HW? It’s the Chairman!

: The Chairman (aka The Most Popular, Most Beloved and Most Esteemed Poster on this Site) (10:12AM)

In spite of my protestations that I do not open attachments because they are totalitarian and bullying, the Chairman has nonetheless posted another. Why has he done this? Is it some sort of ploy, an enticement similar to his “gifts” at the summits but with the difference here that it is not loyalty he wishes to command – the foundation, of course, of his power and command on this site – but rather to ridicule and mete out punishment? What’s on it? Who knows? Who cares? Who, for that matter, is “Honoria”? Haven’t a clue. And oh look! The Dribbler has joined in! Aren’t they just having fun? Aren’t they just enjoying themselves? Aren’t they just a wonderful in-group?

: funnygirl (11:35AM)

You ask how HW is a victim for choosing to have a child and then complaining about the associated costs. You must try and read my posts over more attentively. I refer you to the introduction to my “A Little House Cleaning” (03/08, 4:56PM) where I clearly stated that HW’s bitch did not contain a scintilla of information surrounding the birth of her child. The word “choice” did not appear. She simply had a child under circumstances we know nothing about, wanted to put it into day-care, but could not afford to do so. Simple as that.

The result – it must be obvious to you – is that to blame her misses the point. The point is not “blaming the victim” as I continually pointed out but rather about social justice. It is in that context that HW can be called a “victim” since she is clearly one of the dispossessed in our society and, given the costs associated with unaffordable day-care, both her child and HW herself must face sharply diminished prospects to the point that any hope beyond the welfare/employment insurance trap is lost. You do understand that now, don’t you? If you have any further difficulties in comprehension, don’t hesitate to write.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!