The Suburban Dad

The Economics of Childcare

My fellow dad-blogger Chad Skeleton (the Curious Dad, Vancouver Sun), posted a very interesting entry on the economics of childcare.  Last year, we were in the dilemma of waiting for a spot to open at our facility of choice for son.  Scrambling to find an interim solution was certainly one of the most challenging things we faced as a new parents.  We were just calling left right and centre any home or licensed daycare facility that was available in our area to see if a spot was available.

Here's a short excerpt explaining why Child Care spaces don't follow the normal forces of supply and demand:

"The most likely reason for long waiting lists is that the highest quality preschools tend to be not-for-profit, and they face different incentives than for-profit firms. For example, they may use subsidized space (e.g. a church basement), and would find it very costly to expand capacity. There may also be pressure to keep fees relatively low rather than charging what the market will bear; for example if parents are on the board of directors, they may act as insiders for the benefit of current attendees. Also, subsidizers such as churchs, firms, and social agencies may require low fees. Non-profits pay higher wages than for-profits, so additional revenues may go toward increased pay, rather than capacity expansion.

***

...found that despite the difference in quality on average between non-profit and for-profit child care, it is feasible (i.e. there are examples) for for-profits to produce high quality care. Why don't they do it much? My evidence suggests lack of willingness to pay by parents, something you suggested. Well-educated parents generally have a strong willingness to pay for high quality care, but the average American household does not. The relatively few high quality for-profits tend to be in affluent areas."

For the full blog entry, visit The Curious Dad.

"Teach Every Child to Eat" - Jamie Oliver

Amazing talk by Jamie Oliver at the TED Conference

BC Gov't Making BC Families a Priority?

Our much adorned Premier of BC, Gordon Campbell, made his annual throne speech announcing that the gov't is making BC families a priority?

Some of the highlights:

• New partnerships with the private sector and parents will enable the establishment of neighbourhood preschools for four-year-olds and three-year-olds within communities over the next five years. They will provide families new voluntary options for public and private preschool across B.C. close to where they live

• New emphasis will be placed on parental involvement and in tailoring the education system to each child’s individual needs and passions.

• New forms of schooling will be developed to provide greater choice and diversity, centered on students’ special interests and talents.

• Voluntary, full-time kindergarten for five-year-olds will be implemented this September. It will be fully funded and in every school by September 2011.
  
•   A new Family with Children Property Tax Deferral Option will be provided to all B.C. families with children under the age of 18. Those families will be given the right to defer their property taxes under a new property tax deferral program similar to the one already available to seniors and those facing financial hardship. 
  
•  Government will work with municipalities to dramatically reduce housing costs for young families and to provide increased opportunity for homes they can afford in existing neighbourhoods.

On a side note, the throne speech also mentions a re-commitment to public transportation:

• The success of the new Canada Line has reinforced government’s commitment to invest record amounts in public transit, fix TransLink and get on with the Evergreen Line.
  

The thing about politics is announcements like this are easy to break.  This announcement just so happens to be made around the Olympics when many are protesting about the lack of commitment from the gov't to eliminate child poverty in this province.

My Future Olympian!

Unplanned, spontaneous family moments are the best!  As Vancouver is being engulfed by anything Olympic, the torch relay passed by our neighborhood last night.  Unfortunately, we didn't have a camera with us and this is the closest thing we have to capturing the moment.

Thanks to a major Olympic sponsor, celebratory flags were being given out and we grabbed a couple.  While waiting for the motorcade for the torch bearer, we taught our son to wave the flag and say "Go CANADA".

Once he got the hang of it, he can't stop waving the souvenir flag.  He also muttered "Go, Can-DA".  Close enough.

Maybe he'll be our future Olympian.  

The City's All Dressed Up for the Party

Welcome to Vancouver - Host City of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games

Back in 2003, I was really excited about the prospect of Vancouver hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics.  Now a week before the opening ceremonies, I am a bit torn by the whole Olympic movement.  Don't get me wrong, I still think the ideals of the Olympics are noble - bringing peace and uniting nations together through sport. The athletes are amazing and deserve the spotlight for the hard work they've put in. 

Now that it's in my backyard, I am excited yet divided about the whole thing. Yes, it'll be exciting for the city for the duration of the event.  Yes, the world will be seeing what a great city we live in (albeit the lack of snow). Yes, there are intagible benefits that cannot be measured by any scale whatsoever.  But, what are we really left afterwards as community in Vancouver and British Columbia?  Other Olympic-host cities have seen tangible benefits while some have seen no benefit at all (only to be left with mountains of debt and dilapidated facilties).  Sure, the world isn't responsible to what happens to a host city after the event.  But the world expects the host city to pull out the stops for the two-week celebration.  It's like a wedding that's gone way over-budget.  The intentions are noble yet the means may not completely justify the costs.

Having only been aware of the Olympics since 1984, I am curious to look back on what the Olympic movement was like back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's before rampant commercialism and consumerism infiltrated our society.  Was the Olympics more 'pure' in its intentions then? Is there a way for the world to celebrate and unite through sport without spending the GDP of 20 third-world countries combined.

I've come to the conlcusion that Olympic glory is more about individual dreams more than a collective goal of a community or country.  Yes, winning medals will bring a country pride and joy.  But ultimately, it will mean more to the individual who won the medal than the community-at-large. 

Watching and reading all the media stories, if someone didn't know anything about Olympics, they'll probably think it's about drugs, road closures, security concerns, the homeless problem, ticket scalping, or a party Barack Obama can't attend. When the Olympics starts next week, I will be cheering on all the athletes as they are supposed to be what the Olympics are about (except for Lindsey Jacobellis - the showboating American snowboarder who lost her gold medal at the end of her race, but I digress)    GO CANADA GO!

Not flying to the US anytime soon with my kid....

I've heard some anecdotal stories on the tightened security measures when flying to the US.  I stumbled upon this news story from the New York Times:

At times, security on the ground was easy, but more stringent in the air. Amanda Cain, 41, flew on China Eastern from Beijing to Los Angeles with her 5-year-old daughter, Emily. The security line was a relative breeze. “They let me through easily, I think because they saw I had a small child with me,” Ms. Cain said. “I appreciated that.”

But on the plane, restricted movement and confiscated comforts took a toll.

“The last hour and a half, they said we can’t move at all,” Ms. Cain said. “That was very hard for her. The flight attendant came by and took the pillow from her head. I didn’t like that. Why did they have to wake her up? It would be better for her to sleep.”

Then Emily threw up, never any parent’s dream, but all the more unpleasant when the bathroom cannot be visited.

Flying with children is difficult enough but when you can't move for the last hour of the flight -- that can be daunting task even for the most seasoned adult traveler.  I just imagine being stuck on a United Airlines flight with absolutely no legroom in coach class and not being able to move just in case my son needed a diaper change.  Is he supposed to just leak through his diapers or stink up the whole plane if he goes #2? 

Now passengers are advised to arrive at the airport at least 3-4 hours before their flight.  But, it is more advisable to arrive at the airport at least 6-8 hours before your flight just in case they hold you at security.  They can hold you for no apparent reason (or at least they won't tell you why).  I don't think I want to go on a trip to the US anytime soon.

Talking on a cellphone or texting + Driving = $186 fine in BC

From the Vancouver Sun, Tiffany Crawford:

It is now illegal in B.C. to talk on a hand-held device or text message while driving.

On New Year's Day, changes to the Motor Vehicle Act came into effect, preventing motorists from using hand-held mobile phones, portable electronic devices and text messaging while driving.

Most drivers are still allowed to use hands-free technology that is activated by a single touch of a button. However, those in the Graduated Licensing Program are not allowed to use hands-free phones, said RCMP.

If drivers are caught texting or e-mailing they could face fines up to $167.

But police in B.C. will give drivers a one-month grace period to adapt to the change.

Instead of tickets, police will hand out educational brochures to drivers throughout January.

As of Feb. 1, officers will start writing tickets that carry fines. Drivers with novice or learner's licences will also get three penalty points.

Full story here.

* * *

In light of this new law, my wife and I are looking for a good bluetooth handsfree speaker phone for the car.

Anyone got any recommendations?

Merry Christmas Everyone!

  

Is the cell phone a real family necessity?

Blackberrys, IPhones, Smartphones, Cell Phones - being connected with each other is really a 'staple' today. My question is - does having a cell phone a real family necessity?  I think the problem is we all get more than we should when it comes to cell phone plans. If you have all the features available to you - of course you think you need it because you end up using it.

A friend of mine said to me yesterday that she doesn't want to let go of her data plan because she'll miss browsing YouTube videos on her phone.  And course there's all these 'apps' on IPhones, SmartPhones, and Blackberrys.  There's an app for this, an app for that.  You know what "APP YOU!" 

I've weened myself off caller ID and voicemail on my cell phone.  It's been a few months and it's not really made a significant difference in my life.  If the phone rings I pick it up.  If I can't pick it up, the phone is call forwarded to our landline and voicemail machine picks it up.

I'd switch to a pre-paid phone because my need for a regular voice plan is becoming less and less in my opinion.  When we visited the Philippines, we had a pre-paid cell phone and we functioned just fine.  We were able to get a hold of people when we needed to.  I just really need a cell phone to get a hold of my wife, family and occasionally some friends.

Part of my main motivation here is cuting costs.  I told my wife that we end up spending about $1000 a year on cell phone costs.  $1000 to talk and text?  Is this really a smart way of spending our already limited resources?

So does anyone want to take over cell phone plan?

Fido Killer Plan
17.50 a month
200 daytime minutes
Eve/Weekends Start at 5 p.m.