http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/08/22/child-care-costs-fraser-i...
I know people who are attempting to do this because of their very low incomes, but they can't really make ends meet, especially when the kid becomes a ... teenager.
Raising a child is cheap and cheerful, as long as mom stays at home
Their approach is that expenses associated with having a child, like clothing, food, and education, can be separated from other household expenses. Expenses that households would incur regardless of whether they have children, like housing, transportation, furnishings, and TVs, weren’t counted.
One item that wasn’t counted as being associated with having kids was, surprisingly, the cost of child care. [!!] The report says that child care is “a special expense for those families for whom it is relevant”. The study shows that of two-parent families (aged 25-44) who earned between $75,000-$125,000 in 2009, 51 percent spent nothing on childcare. And in lone-parent families with one child, 87 percent spent nothing on childcare.
Sadly, the study failed to notice that these different types of families have no child care expenses for different reasons. Families in higher income brackets are able to choose to have one parent stay at home with the kids. Alternatively, one parent may work part-time, meaning that the family only has to pay for part-time child care.
Lower income families, however, don’t have that luxury. Parents have to work – often in low-paid, precarious jobs without benefits. One possible reason why so many lone-parent families spend nothing on child care may be that they rely on informal arrangements, like leaving their kids with friends or grandparents while they go to work.
Debunking Fraser Institute’s The Cost of Raising Children
The purpose of the Fraser Institute report is unabashedly ideological: to counter the efforts of “the social welfare community, a broad coalition of public service workers, social activists, academics, and many journalists [who] actively lobby the state for more resources for families with children.” Indeed, the report concludes, “The attempt to measure the cost of children is laden with political implications. This is clearly not simply a scientific exercise.”
So what is the Fraser Institute’s political project? By presenting as low a figure as possible the Fraser Institute hopes to find evidence that a wide range of family assistance programs for low and middle-income families, from child tax credits to EIA rates for families can and should be cut to an absolute minimum. Secondly, they seek to normalize the two-parent, home-owning family, while presenting all other family structures as exceptions.
The evidence the report cites for their low-balled figure is far from convincing. Excluded from their estimates are many of the basic necessities families recognise as essential. Specifically, childcare and housing costs are assumed to be zero, while additional transportation costs are minimized. In their cost estimates, the authors of the report reduce family budgets in all areas to a survival minimum, concluding that any other expenses would be mere luxuries for Canadian children: “money for music lessons, a trip to Disney World, more expensive clothing, more elaborate toys and games, and more educational resources” are things that rich parents may provide, but not things that children of working poor, or middle-income families deserve.
I'm pretty sure my teenager eats most of the estimated yearly cost before clothing her and providing things like braces, or eyeglasses for my younger daughter, school supplies, the occasional round of medication if she gets sick, dental care, that sort of thing. You know, the frivolities.
I suppose we could spend less on groceries if we lived on macaroni and margarine. Who needs fresh fruit and vegetables, anyway?
Cue the inevitable conclusion that the working poor are not "careful" enough with their money and spending it all on beer and pizza in 5,4,3....
Thanks, Catchfire. And out of the "luxury" examples given, how could anyone seriously present "music lessons" (or art, science, computer, craftwork or sport lessons) or "more educational resources" as superfluous for proper child rearing?
Even travel is not only Disney World. Perhaps the grandparents live in Florida? Or perhaps they live in Asia, Europe, or even the other side of Canada? These are the same people who wanted to uproot all of Atlantic Canada and eastern Québec to work in Alberta.
I suppose if you feed the kid gruel and only dress her or him in second-hand clothing - even shoes and boots. My family was poor, and I had orthpaedic problems and it was a struggle to buy the shoes I needed. And kids grow out of them fast, sometimes in big spurts.
Basically, the Fraser institute can fuck right off, as usual.
Indeed. Timebandit, a neighbour in my co-op is unemployed and she sighs whenever her now teenage son, who must be not so far from six feet at only 13 (!!!) opens the fridge. He isn't greedy or at all fat, he's just hungry. She buys no junk and he doesn't insist on any, but it is such a challenge to feed a lofty young lad like that on almost no money. It is fortunate that we have good cultural resources here such as La Grande bibliothèque, and some community sport facilities. Hockey would be out of the question though.
I have to wonder who they expect to take them seriously on this.
I have to wonder who they expect to take them seriously on this.
The Conservative government who can use this study to justify cutting tax benefits and programs for children and families.
The Conservative government who can use this study to justify cutting tax benefits and programs for children and families.
Bingo. Except they don't even need to take them seriously (and probably don't, in their precious hearts): they just need to cite this report to justify the cuts they want to make anyway.
It seems to me the real issue here is why the media isn't being attacked for carrying Fraser Institute announcements. It isn't legit news, it's corporate propaganda.
Yes, but it's not like this government has ever needed studies and research to justify their agenda - quite the opposite. Harper has never been shy to say he doesn't accept statistics.
If anything, trying to put numbers on paper to match that agenda shows just how much of a fiction it is, and gives the opposition even more ammunition. You only have to look at some of the number-crunching in the readers' posts to see that.
So again - why?
And speaking of which, I don't suppose they factored food bank usage into this study, did they? That would illustrate an actual shortage, after all.
@ Tommy
I think they covered the bases in debunking it. Sorry but this is news, unless you want to point fingers about it being posted and talked about here, too.
Yes, but we wouldn't be talking about it if the media hadn't picked it up. And they shouldn't have, nor anything else from the Frasier propaganda outfit.
Like all of the FI's nonsense, it's for the benefit of people who want to believe this stuff, but have no facts to support it. They won't look into the details of the numbers, or pay any attention to others that do, they'll just think "That study said I was right. I knew it!" and block out everything else. It's a way of deflecting the cognitive dissonance that might lead to thinking critically. And there's very little resources that go into this stuff. It's not like they ever actually study anything. They (whoever these people are) just write papers that make up bullshit. Not hard to do or time-consuming. If I were an evil plutocrat I would definitely start something like the FI. Very cost-effective propaganda.
I tend to think this one was over the top though, and that is why even the Globe and Mail had rather suspicious coverage of their nutty figures. Those are figures that pertain to either dire poverty or pernicious child abuse.
These also make our most modest demands sound "rich".
The "study"'s purpose is to preach to the choir. Get the propaganda out and get the Con supporters babbling on about how it's been shown that these welfare recipients and people who want benefits to care for their kids are just feckless when it comes to money. Ammunition for another round of poor-shaming.
I wish I could be confident that this is so transparently bullshit that it would be obvious to anyone, but what I'm seeing on facebook and other places is people chiming in on how you can raise kids for less if you're just frugal and clip those coupons (friends of friends... oh, boy). It's like the actual amounts FI cited aren't even fizzing on them. Oh, and if you object and say that no, kids actually do cost you money, then you're some souless bean-counter who doesn't actually love your kids because they are WORTH THE SACRIFICE!!!!!!11111!!!!
I guess the Fraser institute don't send any of their kids out to play hockey. The $4 grand they are postulating would be used up just in the purchase of equipment and ice time for one year. And if you had two kids it would be double, or one of them would be left out of sports altogether.
More BS from a right wing corporate sponsored propaganda machine.
I think the Fraser Institute should have borrowed the title of a book by U.S. black educator Lisa Delpit and called the report "Other People's Children."
etenebrislux, I think their point is that such things as hockey, other sports or music lessons aren't "necessities". That there are people out there who do raise kids without being able to afford those programs and so they don't participate in them, or access some form of them through charity programs that do not come out of the parents' pocket.
My dispute with their reckoning isn't just that things like athletics and music obviously aren't accounted for there - it's that I find it incredible that you could actually adequately house, clothe and feed a child on under $4,000 a year. In addition to that, their calculations seem to put antibiotics for an occasional ear infection or dental care - things I think we can all agree are absolute necessities - in the category of fripperies. There's just no way for it all to be covered under that little money.
Here is a rabble column (or blog) about the Fraser Institute gruel report: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/behind-numbers/2013/08/fraser-institute-...
You have to shake your head. Stockpiling? Knitting? I know extreme couponing is on the reality tv radar, but it's drastically unrealistic for the vast majority of people. Sewing or knitting your own clothes ceased to be economical a couple of decades ago. The report was obviously put together by people who've never managed a tight household budget or clipped a fucking coupon in their lives.
Sewing can still be economical for people who are very hard to fit, but adapting patterns is a high-level skill. Knitting yarn is very expensive; by the way mending yarn has practically disappeared; I was lucky to find a bit for a hole in a beloved merino pullover. Loblaws had a $1 sale this week and lots of people were stockpiling some tinned tuna or tomatoes, but as the rabble article said, you can't stockpile fresh vegetables. And freezers are scary for the poor; recently there have been some local blackouts and people have lost everything in the freeze
They have this vision of postwar southern or eastern European immigrant households "putting everything up".
Slight tangent - I'm listening to Radio-Canada, and they are reporting from Washington that the incomes of white people in the US are STILL about twice those of black people, and black people are twice as likely to be unemployed.
The last time I decided to sew something, I found that the cost of the unassembled garment (fabric, thread, notions) was more than something similar I could buy off the rack and then have altered, sadly. Then you've got the machine and tools overhead - if you ammortize that over the number of things you'd sew with it, it's either a lot or a little. At one time it made sense. Even my very thrifty mother decided a long time ago that the dresses she made for my niece weren't cheap, she just enjoyed making them.
The vision of "the poor" they report writers had is a curious perception, and yes, I think it's also got some time-travel reverberations in it. Yes, you can freeze vegetables, but first you need the space for a freezer and the means to pay out of pocket for one - in addition to the worry that you mention.
The whole thing is just daft.
Even in the countryside, I knew people who hunted, and had a whole freezer full of tasty, lean, sustainable game.
Then came the Great Ice Storm.
Fortunately these people, while they lived very modestly, weren't destitute. But what a heartbreak, and sad about the game animals killed for naught.
There is no room for a true freezer where I live. Oh, I'm not at all cramped here, but I'm sure families of at least four people and probably more lived in my little flat at one point. Early in this century, central Montréal neighbourhoods had an extremely high population density, and there were few tall buildings - mostly triplexes like the one I live in.
Yes, I've known people who hunt and freeze. We tend to buy beef in bulk and keep it in the deep freeze, but that's more out of quality concern than cost.
I just think it's peculiar, when they're talking about a family being able to live in a two-bedroom apartment (that doesn't cost more than a one-bedroom apartment), how they think they'll be able to "stockpile" food. If you're in a small suite because that costs less, then where do you put the freezer? Or store the quantities of canned goods? There's just so much that hasn't been considered with any practical thought or knowledge.
Anyone else find it ironic that the study comes out at a time when we are bombarded with advertisements for back to school?
Yes. And the shopping I just did for school supplies made it all the more clear just how daft the so-called study is.
I don't know if the study timing was so ironic or absurd. Here, many parents and community groups have been speaking out against the very high cost of school supplies, not to mention clothing, school fees and other incidentals that quickly add up.
La Maisonnette des parents near my house helps low-income parents with this, but such help is never enough. http://www.maisonnettedesparents.org/
Not to mention that suggesting parents rely on charitable organizations and the education system to provide supplies for school would seem to go against right wing principles.
I don't tend to do a lot of clothes shopping for back to school - everything is more expensive then, and we just replace or add what is needed at the time. The only exception is clothing for gym class.
But the binders, duotang folders, paper, pens, pencils, pencil crayons, calculators, etc etc etc do tend to add up. We're even expected to supply a couple of boxes of tissues for the classroom because the schools don't supply it.
A related story from Thunder Bay: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2013/08/29/tbay-back-to-...
Back to school can be an exciting time, but it can also be stressful for low-income families who can’t afford all the new clothes and school supplies.
The Clothing Assistance Mission, a Thunder Bay charity, is hoping to relieve some of the stress by helping to provide the basics.
A related story from Thunder Bay: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2013/08/29/tbay-back-to-...
Back to school can be an exciting time, but it can also be stressful for low-income families who can’t afford all the new clothes and school supplies.
The Clothing Assistance Mission, a Thunder Bay charity, is hoping to relieve some of the stress by helping to provide the basics.
I'm sorry, but what the **** is with people having to rely on charity to meet their needs here in Canada!? IT used to be that we only had to help children in poor countries afford school supplies!
I know, right?
Between child care costs and school fees, the estimate on what kids cost is woefully inadequate.
I may be dating myself, but I can remember back to the early 80s when the government, the opposition, and the media quoted Statistics Canada instead of the CD Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute.
This only emphasizes why we need to go back to Stats Canada for our statistical information.
