Iris Evans, the Minster of Finance in Alberta, remarked today that in order to raise children "properly" one parent should stay at home while the
other goes to work.
Huh?
Is the Minister of Finance aware that wages have been falling for decades and few families are able to rely on one income? Is she aware that we are in the middle of a global recession?
Somehow, I have a hunch that she'd be less than pleased that her stance may more frequently become the norm as men lose their jobs and may forcibly become the household caregiver.
Let's here what Evans has to say:
In a tangent at the end of a speech on Alberta's economy to the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto, Iris Evans spoke about the importance of teaching kids about finances and how those lessons can be empowering.
After struggling with finances as a mother herself, Evans said she made it her mission to teach her kids about money.
Now as adults with their own families, her kids have topped up RRSPs, live in good houses and have good savings, Evans said.
She also said good parenting means sacrificing some income to stay at home while kids are young, as her children have done.
"They've understood perfectly well that when you're raising children you don't both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise," Evans said.
"This is not a statement against daycare. It's a statement about their belief in the importance of raising children properly."
She also said a lack of education is ruining the upbringing of some children and leading to mental illness and crime.
"The huge failure of Canadians is not to educate the children properly and then why should we be surprised when they have mental illnesses or commit dreadful crimes?," she said.
"We've really got to focus on that properly and it should be financial literacy as well as anything else."
Evans said today's Canadians don't save enough money and a simple fix to avoid those pitfalls for the next generation is to teach children about finances from an early age.
"If you don't read to the child they'll never learn how to read and if you don't talk to them about money and we don't start educating this next generation they'll think that the world owes them a living," she told the small business crowd.
Not only should parents be teaching kids about money, but government should also be putting money toward financial literacy, Evans said, lamenting the lack of such funds in Alberta's recent budget.
"The great tragedy in this year's budget in Alberta ... is that we put 200 more policemen, police officers, for the next two years and more Crown prosecutors, more law enforcement people," she said.
"If we had put 200 more positions in place to help parents be better parents I would have been much happier."
Evans also spoke of the need for a national supplemental pension plan, saying provinces will be meeting in July to propose a framework to take to the federal government.
Ideally that would happen in two to three years, but even if that can't happen Alberta and B.C. will pursue their own approach, she said.
"If nationally the other provinces aren't' engaged for whatever reason or if it can't be attached to a vehicle like CPP that makes sense to the provinces, B.C. and Alberta will definitely go ahead," Evans said.
"Our savings by individuals are far too low."
So, if more parents stayed home to raise their children, children would have better financial literacy, be less mentally ill, less criminally-oriented, and less in debt?!
I cannot even touch on the convoluted reasoning of Evans' cavalier comments about mental illness and crime being linked to lack of home parenting.
But is the Minister of Finance seriously suggesting that: 1) all parents can afford to say home; and 2) financial literacy is all that is required to establish financial security?
Were all the stockbrokers and investors who lost big with the global recession financially illiterate?
Does Iris Evans know anything about economics beyond balancing a checkbook?!
Here's a thought - maybe, if the United Nations Systems of National Accounting counted care work as productive labour, we could organize a society that allowed parents to spend more time at home.
Maybe, if we did not live under Capitalism that happily sucks people away from all life-producing and enhancing activities to exploit them for profit, people could afford to spend time with their families.
Iris Evans, read up on the topic of reproductive work and economics before you make dumb and offensive comments about parents and their choices as they struggle to provide for their children.
Start with Nancy Folbre's "Invisible Heart." Then, try Marilyn Waring's "Who's Counting?" and then read some socialist feminist authors like Selma James, founder of the movement to Invest in Caring Not Killing.
At the very least, check out the Women and The Economy project.
Seriously, people, is not time to end oligarchy and Conservative hegemony in Alberta? Should our ministers not be required to demonstrate at least some expertise regarding the issues relevant to their departments?!
Links:
"Raising children properly' requires stay-at-home parent: Alberta minister" via CBC Calgary
I think that Iris Evans was trying to get a point across, but she did it way too bluntly instead of doing it with a little bit of class. Yes, a lot of parents, especially single parents, can't stay home with their children. At the same time, 85-90% of women said that if they could afford it, they would prefer to stay home with their kids. Obviously it is something they value because they believe that it would be best for their kids! Probably her best point was that "Sacrificing some income to stay at home with the kids is probably the best", but could be said a littler better if she mentioned "if it's affordable". Numerous studies have shown that it IS best for the kids to have one parent stay at home instead of both parents working. Obviously she has something to say when she says "It is best when one parents is at home". She just didn't do it in a very politically correct manner.
Second, she said that education is very important, and that it prevents mental illness and crime. Once again, she probably could have explained herself better - what exactly does she mean by mental illness? I'm sure studies have been done as well that show that when 1 parent stays at home that their kids do get into trouble a lot less. Often times one of the toughest times for teenagers was for them was when they came home and there was no one there, and that often times that was when they would end up getting themselves into trouble.
And lastly, the part I probably agree with the most - YES, we need FINANCIAL EDUCATION FOR KIDS! I can't believe how many people I see at University walking around with Ipods and starbucks coffee's, go hiking in the mountains in Europe during the summer, and complain like crazy when they get back that tuition is too high. This country was built on people working hard and saving, and now Canada and the US are both going downhill because that no longer exists like it used to. People just borrow, borrow, and borrow more. It seems like each generation loses the values of hard work/saving/investing more than the last. Not only that, but people seem to know nothing about investing, compound interest, budgeting, and all that fun stuff! We need to do some major overhauling so that every kid who goes through high school is required to take a class on finances. It's getting pretty tiring seeing all these kids living at home with their parents at the age of 21, making $3000 a month, and can hardly afford their car payments, have no savings, and blow their money on beer each weekend.
Posted by: Hardworker | June 18, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Hardworker,
On your first point, Iris Evans simply did not explain herself better and given the nature of her province and personal politics (I live in Edmonton) probably would be at pains to do so. I suspect she meant exactly what she said.
On your second point about paying for university: Tuition, books and fees(oh how they nickle and dime!) for my undergraduate degree were ~$4500-5500/a, rent was another $4000/a depending on where/how I was living, and food ~$3600/a. So we're looking at an absolute minimum of ~12000/a in expenses per school year. They definitely came in higher when unforeseen events emerged, so a more realistic figure might be closer to $15 000. The most I ever grossed in one summer of work was $8000 (working for the federal gov't). Usually it was 2/3 to 1/2 that (tree planting). I had to still pay rent and such through that time. Annual living expenses therefore had to be met on a scant 7500 to 10000 that could not be earned in a summer of work. You try living on that and still find money to invest!
I HAD to borrow money for my undergrad because the costs of a bare minimum standard of living and education have exceeded the earnings available for summer work. I started my undergrad in my late 20s because with no education, I was stuck with working crap jobs for barely above minimum wage that allowed almost no room for saving.
Those kids you see with cars and Ipods may be older part-time students on the 10year undergraduate degree plan who are able to work full time, or younger students with parents able to pay for their education (many are not so lucky). If kids are living at home and going to school it is likely because they are trying to avoid debt (isn't that fiscal responsibility?) and finish their degree within a reasonable length of time.
It seems you're making the same error as Evans in that you're both arguing for something that is not possible for many people in current race-to-the-bottom economy.
Posted by: Boris | June 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I'll keep my kids out of that mandated financial planning class on religious/moral grounds. You really want the government to teach our children about finances? "Take money from you sister's piggy bank to give yourself a raise in allowance with, and if you can't manage your money just run a deficit" isn't what I'd like the kiddos to be learning.
Posted by: Dr. Prole | June 19, 2009 at 09:11 PM