So goes the logic. Today the government of NL announced even more stringent regulations on child care facilities. What libertarian ideologue would oppose new regulation to “protect our children”.
In the article, Dale Kirby who introduced the new rules, dismisses concerns from people in the industry by saying there will always be people who oppose regulation, but it’s necessary because it’s for the safety of children.
There are a number of things at play in this situation.
1) Who can decide what the right level of quality is? Can a top-down government decide that? Is it the same for everyone? Yes, we are dealing with children. But different parents and different children have different wants and needs. Some might want more stringent regulation. Others might want less. As far as I can tell, some of the requirements were already ridiculous and over the top. Now they want more? It’s like when people say “Best possible healthcare” or “best possible education”. Those are meaningless concepts. What is the “best”? If every child was regulated to have 3 caregivers each, you can still do more. You could have 5 or 10 or 2000.
2) Prices are eliminated or distorted which makes deciding between options very difficult. If the government pays for all or most of the childcare, people will obviously support maximum regulation. It costs them nothing. If they had to pay the real cost, people wouldn’t necessarily want all of the absurd regulations.
3) Stringent regulation discourages or prevents innovation. Maybe some entrepreneurs have ideas to decrease price and increase value, whether in terms of safety, learning, or any other aspect. Regulating every tiny detail makes it difficult to work within the system and still innovate.
4) Government paying for daycare of most of it not only distorts the market, but also creates massive economic loss. The goal of free childcare ostensibly is to allow mothers to work to increase family income. The problem is, with all these new regulations, the amount spent per child per day is enormous. I will have to calculate figures on it. But let’s assume $30 per hour per child. If the government pays for childcare, the mother has no incentive to stay home with her child or children. Economically speaking she is better off putting them in indoctrination camps daycare. However, if she puts them in daycare and then goes off to a job which pays $13 per hour, there is an economic loss of $17 per hour. Obviously there is an ulterior motive to daycare and it’s not just about caring for children. Indoctrination is much easier when it starts early. And it’s also the reason why government is so strictly involved.
I know this article didn’t provide a lot of specifics, but these are general thoughts. To summarize:
- There is no such thing as “best possible” when it comes to services
- Government involvement distorts prices and discourages innovation
No comments:
Post a Comment