Childcare fees bite parents who want work 
SBS News Feb 1  2018
More stay-at-home parents say they're not working because child care is too expensive than those who say it's their preference to look after their kids.   :(


Nearly 120,000 parents aren't working because child care is too expensive or they can't find a spot.

The high price of child care was the top reason cited for Australians who weren't in the labour force because they were looking after children, government data released on Thursday shows.

One in three, or 95,700, said this was the case for them, while another 21,700 said there was either no childcare service nearby or no spots available.   :(

That's more than those who said they were stay-at-home parents because they preferred to look after their children that way - a reason given by 77,600.

The federal government hopes its new childcare subsidy system, which starts in July, will let many of these parents be able to take up work.

Education Minister Simon Birmingham estimates the overhaul will help an extra 230,000 families get back to work or take on more hours.

The Productivity Commission report shows the most parents saying stiff fees were a barrier to returning to work were in the Northern Territory and Queensland.

However, Queensland had the lowest median cost of daycare in the country - at $400 a week or $80 a day - and the NT was the third lowest.

Parents in Queensland also had the lowest out-of-pocket costs after government subsidies, across all income brackets.

The ACT had the highest fees, with a median weekly cost of $545 for long day care.

Under the new childcare support system, taxpayers will only pay subsidies for fees up to a maximum of $11.55 an hour ($115.50 a day or $577 for a full week).

In 2017, none of the median fees charged in any state was higher than this; however, the data does not reveal what the most expensive services cost and how many there are above this maximum level.

The middle level of fees in the ACT was $10.90 an hour.

COST OF CHILDCARE IN 2017 

* Queensland $400 a week ($80 a day)

* Tasmania $414 ($82.80)

* NT $439 ($87.80)

* South Australia $442 ($88.40)

* Western Australia $452 ($90.40)

* NSW $470 ($94)

* Victoria $470 ($94)

* ACT $545 ($109)

All part of the liberal legacy. Wage suppression and out of control rising costs is all you will get under this corrupt Turdbull government.

Not Working Because Childcare Is Too Expensive

Will you make up your mind? You bleat incessantly about wages not being adequate. Here is a case of good wages of child care workers (plus the various rules, regulations, and licence fees) making child care a very expensive exercise and you are still bleating.

You are a  walking talking paradox.

salad in wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:42am:

Not Working Because Childcare Is Too Expensive Will you make up your mind? You bleat incessantly about wages not being adequate. Here is a case of good wages of child care workers (plus the various rules, regulations, and licence fees) making child care a very expensive exercise and you are still bleating. You are a  walking talking paradox.

So is that your funny for the day? Little sense debating with a person who thinks childcare workers are well paid. ;D ;D ;D ;D

macman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:17am:

salad in wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:42am: Not Working Because Childcare Is Too Expensive Will you make up your mind? You bleat incessantly about wages not being adequate. Here is a case of good wages of child care workers (plus the various rules, regulations, and licence fees) making child care a very expensive exercise and you are still bleating. You are a  walking talking paradox. So is that your funny for the day? Little sense debating with a person who thinks childcare workers are well paid. ;D ;D ;D ;D

;D beat me to it

macman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:17am:

salad in wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:42am: Not Working Because Childcare Is Too Expensive Will you make up your mind? You bleat incessantly about wages not being adequate. Here is a case of good wages of child care workers (plus the various rules, regulations, and licence fees) making child care a very expensive exercise and you are still bleating. You are a  walking talking paradox. So is that your funny for the day? Little sense debating with a person who thinks childcare workers are well paid. ;D ;D ;D ;D

They seem to be paid well and are in high demand, even with very expensive childcare a lot them have waiting lists. No easy solution here often it comes down to a life style choice over money to work.
What concerns me would be the potential explosion of unregulated child care.

macman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:13am:

All part of the liberal legacy. Wage suppression and out of control rising costs is all you will get under this corrupt Turdbull government.

Yet another feeble attempt to rewrite history.

when the feminists got women to re enter the workplace 40 years ago, we had a  doubling of the labour pool.

if you double the labour pool , you halve the value of labour.

that was a really dumb move.

now the feminists and leftie socialist intellectuals nearly destroyed the family unit with that dumb move , but they still had to find a way of getting the "state" to be a substitute parent to really finish the family unit off.

enter institutional day care. ;)

now from cradle to university, the little critters can be fully indocrinated by the leftie intellectual, whilst women work 40 hours a week in crap jobs they dont even enjoy  ;)

and the complete irony is that jobs for men are disappearing.

men will soon be at home , curled up on the couch watching porn and netflix whilst the women work even longer to pay for kids they never see.

the leftie  intellectuals have really sold women a lemon.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Idiot.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 10:48am:

Idiot.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arise-awake-and-stop-not/female-happiness-index-decreasing-equality-is-the-cause/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap

very 'reactive" answer bojack and clearly wrong

He's been watching too much "Longwindbag".

When I was young, married, kids, there was no child care welfare. There was no child care except what you could arrange privately and pay for.
And there was nothing wrong with that.
At least they weren't getting lessons in LGBTXYZ and other crap.

macman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:13am:

All part of the liberal legacy. Wage suppression and out of control rising costs is all you will get under this corrupt Turdbull government.

Costs are rising because of employee expectations, since employees are the majority and they vote for the government, they vote themselves all the perks in the world.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 11:47am:

He's been watching too much "Longwindbag". When I was young, married, kids, there was no child care welfare. There was no child care except what you could arrange privately and pay for. And there was nothing wrong with that. At least they weren't getting lessons in LGBTXYZ and other crap.

One parent worked in your vintage whilst mum stayed home and took care of domestic duties .

We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work.

Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option.

Its time wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 12:15pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 11:47am: He's been watching too much "Longwindbag". When I was young, married, kids, there was no child care welfare. There was no child care except what you could arrange privately and pay for. And there was nothing wrong with that. At least they weren't getting lessons in LGBTXYZ and other crap. One parent worked in your vintage whilst mum stayed home and took care of domestic duties .

Wrong as usual. We both worked.

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 12:23pm:

We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work. Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option.

This is your solution to everything isn't it.
Put it on the taxpayer tab.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:23pm: We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work. Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option. This is your solution to everything isn't it. Put it on the taxpayer tab.

Is this your solution, Dr?


http://americanmemoryofthe1950shousewif.bgsu.wikispaces.net/file/view/kbll.jpg/180416905/283x345/kbll.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 12:58pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:42pm: Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:23pm: We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work. Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option. This is your solution to everything isn't it. Put it on the taxpayer tab. Is this your solution, Dr? http://americanmemoryofthe1950shousewif.bgsu.wikispaces.net/file/view/kbll.jpg/180416905/283x345/kbll.jpg

if our aim is happiness for females in society, then "yes" that is probably the solution

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 1:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:58pm: bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:42pm: Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:23pm: We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work. Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option. This is your solution to everything isn't it. Put it on the taxpayer tab. Is this your solution, Dr? http://americanmemoryofthe1950shousewif.bgsu.wikispaces.net/file/view/kbll.jpg/180416905/283x345/kbll.jpg if our aim is happiness for females in society, then "yes" that is probably the solution

http://www.teamjimmyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bus-%E2%80%93-1950s-housewife-meme.jpg

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 1:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:58pm: bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:42pm: Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:23pm: We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work. Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option. This is your solution to everything isn't it. Put it on the taxpayer tab. Is this your solution, Dr? http://americanmemoryofthe1950shousewif.bgsu.wikispaces.net/file/view/kbll.jpg/180416905/283x345/kbll.jpg if our aim is happiness for females in society, then "yes" that is probably the solution

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/ec/8a/ebec8a4447e388f5c8bc4ad6369626ee--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg

google

"declining female happiness since 1960'

;)

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness
www.nber.org/papers/w14969
by B Stevenson - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 447 - ‎Related articles
By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various ...


Gains in women's rights haven't made women happier. Why is that ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../may/.../womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-g...
May 18, 2016 - But while women are living longer, it's unclear whether their wellbeing is showing comparable strides. As women gain political, economic and social freedoms, one would expect that they should feel even more contented relative to men. But this isn't so. The “paradox of declining female happiness” was ...

[PDF]The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness - Federal Reserve Bank ...
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp09-11bk.pdf
by B Stevenson - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 447 - ‎Related articles
May 12, 2009 - By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well- being is found ...


Women & Happiness: Is It Still Declining? | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/.../women-happiness-is-it-still-declining
Mar 10, 2013 - This is a great time for women, but given all of their advancements,are women happier? According to a 2009 study entitled, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, the answer is a resounding no. In light of International Women's Day, I wanted to re-visit these findings and check in with all of you about ...

Female happiness index decreasing, equality is the cause
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com › Blogs › Lifestyle Blogs
May 12, 2017 - Since the 70s, women in the US and Europe have reported feeling less satisfied with their lives. The “paradox of declining female happiness” pointed out by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers is till now the strongest argument that women's happiness is less than men both absolutely and ...


[PDF]The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness - IZA - Institute of Labor ...
ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf
by B Stevenson - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 445 - ‎Related articles
The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. *. By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's.
[PDF]The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness - Yale Law School
https://law.yale.edu/..

./Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf
by B Stevenson - ‎Cited by 447 - ‎Related articles
has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well‐ being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well‐being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in ...


Women no longer the happier sex - The Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk › News
Jul 7, 2016 - It follows warnings that the so-called “do-it-all generation” of women are facing a stress epidemic. The narrowing gap in happiness between the sexes also mirrors trends seen in other areas in recent years including life expectancy. Men in the UK are now living healthier lives, in part because of the decline ..

.
Liberated and Unhappy - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html
May 25, 2009 - Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women. This is “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” the subject of a provocative paper from the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. The paper is fascinating not only ...


What's Happening To Women's Happiness? | HuffPost
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus.../whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.ht...
Nov 17, 2009 - According to Stevenson and Wolfers, if you assume a strong link between being unhappy and being unemployed (which there is—the longer you're out of work, the more depressed you become,) the decline in women's happiness is as if women's unemployment has risen from 10% to 18%. Happy girl to ...

http://teamjimmyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1950s-housewife-fun-do-for-fun-laundry-dishes-sarcasm.jpg

but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 1:23pm:

but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg

Will do.


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg

https://youtu.be/iGhcjIUrwQQ

Once the ironing is done there is dishes and cooking to do

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 1:26pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg

And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy.
I,m curious.
If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever.

I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:12pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever. I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem.

Try to focus.

There were a lot more men like "me" in the 1950s :)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever. I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem. Try to focus. There were a lot more men like "me" in the 1950s :)

No wonder you vote libtard  ::)

Its time wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:23pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever. I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem. Try to focus. There were a lot more men like "me" in the 1950s :) No wonder you vote libtard  ::)

And no wonder millions of women voted for Trump
:)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:23pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever. I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem. Try to focus. There were a lot more men like "me" in the 1950s :) No wonder you vote libtard  ::) And no wonder millions of women voted for Trump :)

I wonder if the two women who allege Trump raped them when they were small children voted for him.

Or any of the other dozen or so women who have accused him of rape or sexual assault.

I'm curious.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:30pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:27pm: Its time wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:23pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever. I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem. Try to focus. There were a lot more men like "me" in the 1950s :) No wonder you vote libtard  ::) And no wonder millions of women voted for Trump :) I wonder if the two women who allege Trump raped them when they were small children voted for him. Or any of the other dozen or so women who have accused him of rape or sexual assault. I'm curious.

Galileo faced "allegations" of heresy.
Thankfully, allegations mean nothing .  So try to focus.
Why are women becoming increasingly unhappy with the "feminist utopia"
I'm curious

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 2:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:30pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:27pm: Its time wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:23pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 2:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 1:23pm: but carry on with your innaccurate "group think" gweg Will do. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/21/84/eb21847ad193c8ccafb517a8059a80e7--s-housewife-vintage-housewife.jpg And yet study after study shows women are becoming more unhappy. I,m curious. If my numerous provided studies are wrong, I promise to leave the forum forever. I suspect "men" like you might be part of the problem. Try to focus. There were a lot more men like "me" in the 1950s :) No wonder you vote libtard  ::) And no wonder millions of women voted for Trump :) I wonder if the two women who allege Trump raped them when they were small children voted for him. Or any of the other dozen or so women who have accused him of rape or sexual assault. I'm curious. Galileo faced "allegations" of heresy. Thankfully, allegations mean nothing .  So try to focus. Why are women becoming increasingly unhappy with the "feminist utopia" I'm curious

Why are you so quick to defend people accused of raping children?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 1:22pm:

http://teamjimmyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1950s-housewife-fun-do-for-fun-laundry-dishes-sarcasm.jpg

Add to her hectic daily routine her appointment with 'Bewitched', 'Ellen', 'Bold and Beautiful' and of course crime solver Jessica Fletcher in 'Murder She Wrote'.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 1:18pm:

google "declining female happiness since 1960' ;)

Women who haven't experienced happiness are yet to meet me.

Childcare costs have risen as a direct result of government subsidies. Providing a subsidy simply increases demand for the product. If the supply side is constrained then the price will rise. The rise in price is usually equal to the value of the subsidy. Basic high school stuff. A truly dumb policy. Fukkwits.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 12:23pm: We need to rethink childcare in this country. It's not working well. The cost is too prohibitive for some people and that keeps them out of work. It adds to traffic because people have to visit a childcare centre that's out of their way. Average charges of $400 a week are a very strong disincentive to find work. Perhaps we should make it free as they do in some countries or cap the charges at a much lower level. We should relax the regulations on the industry to make it possible for someone to get paid a government subsidy to look after someone else's kids. We should consider other solutions. Doing nothing is no longer an option. This is your solution to everything isn't it. Put it on the taxpayer tab.

You don't get it. It's already on the taxpayers' tab. That's how taxpayer-funded subsidies work.

It's not helping though, the users pay far too much. We need to explore options to get these costs down.

I see you're not offering any constructive suggestions. Where are your ideas? Get them out so we can see them.

If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids.

My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves.

I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids.

CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves.

Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers.

Valkie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:59pm:

If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers.

What about men - why can't they bring up the kids?

Valkie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:59pm:

If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers.

With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both.

If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow.

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Valkie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:59pm: If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers. With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both. If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow.

We didn't put our kids in childcare, we worked it so one of us was there for them. Look after your own damned kids.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 7:22pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 7:17pm: Valkie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:59pm: If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers. With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both. If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow. We didn't put our kids in childcare, we worked it so one of us was there for them. Look after your own damned kids.

Child care for a day or 2 a week from 3 is good, lots of playtime, they keep them really active and builds up their immune system.

I'll check this later but I believe Mrs G mentioned our local place has gone up to nearly $200 a day.

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Valkie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:59pm: If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers. With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both. If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow.

Subsidies only push demand. It is a supply side problem. Way back in 2004 and despite his considerable flaws, Latham pointed this out when Howard first detailed the 30% rebate and put forward policies to attack the supply issues. Unfortunately, it died with his demise and Rudd decided to increase the rebate to 50%. Wanker.

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 10:24pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 7:17pm: Valkie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:59pm: If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers. With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both. If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow. Subsidies only push demand. It is a supply side problem. Way back in 2004 and despite his considerable flaws, Latham pointed this out when Howard first detailed the 30% rebate and put forward policies to attack the supply issues. Unfortunately, it died with his demise and Rudd decided to increase the rebate to 50%. Wanker.

A Job Guarantee may reduce child care costs if looking after someone else's kids was a possible occupation. $200 to $250 a week per child, look after 3 of someone else's children and that would earn enough for someone to get by. This would work best if the parents knew each other well, such as family or close friends.

This isn't feasible at the moment due to excessive regulation.

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Valkie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:59pm: If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers. With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both. If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow.

From the people I know that use childcare services they really don't do it for the money its more about keeping their career current and active. If they drop out of the work force its harder to get back in.

Given the numbers I have heard its not easy to keep a lid on costs for an industry that seems to struggle to keep up with demand in a regulated industry ...... loosening regulations is one option but that would create other problems.
Easy to talk about harder to come up with real answers.

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 10:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 10:24pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 7:17pm: Valkie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:59pm: If you cant afford to have children and look after them yourself......don't have kids. My wife looked after our kids right up until they could look after themselves. I resent paying taxes to be wasted on giving money to women who think they are too important to look after their own kids. CUT all child care subsidy, let the centers close down and women will have to bring up the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids will grow up better mannered and not such a bunch of losers. With the cost of living these days, without some form of subsidy, people could have jobs or kids but not both. If not enough people can afford to have kids, the tax base must collapse eventually. Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers. No kids today means no taxpayers tomorrow. Subsidies only push demand. It is a supply side problem. Way back in 2004 and despite his considerable flaws, Latham pointed this out when Howard first detailed the 30% rebate and put forward policies to attack the supply issues. Unfortunately, it died with his demise and Rudd decided to increase the rebate to 50%. Wanker. A Job Guarantee may reduce child care costs if looking after someone else's kids was a possible occupation. $200 to $250 a week per child, look after 3 of someone else's children and that would earn enough for someone to get by. This would work best if the parents knew each other well, such as family or close friends. This isn't feasible at the moment due to excessive regulation.

Yeah that 'regulation' is to stop useless fkktards from looking after other people's children.

If you don't want proper child care and the costs that go with that, leave your kids with a random stranger off the street for $5 per hour and see how that works out.

Tough - in that case maybe childcare cash should be dropped entirely, including for public servants etc.... and the natural market be guided by family requirements ..... that's resolve unemployment in a heartbeat, and begin the Downfall of some of the social inequalities that have been shoved on this nation by stupid policy directions...

Good to see that at least a few of the Party faithful and families managed to extract a few lazy millions from the childcare fiasco before it reached the reality point where it was seen for what it is - too bloody expensive in every way.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

Tough - in that case maybe childcare cash should be dropped entirely, including for public servants etc.... and the natural market be guided by family requirements ..... that's resolve unemployment in a heartbeat, and begin the Downfall of some of the social inequalities that have been shoved on this nation by stupid policy directions... Good to see that at least a few of the Party faithful and families managed to extract a few lazy millions from the childcare fiasco before it reached the reality point where it was seen for what it is - too bloody expensive in every way.

Just leave them at home with a pack of fruitloops sprinkled around the house, the TV on with a loop of PlaysKoOl and a few devices with webcams so you can keep an eye on them.

If you get caught the fine from DOCS would be what, $2000??  At $150 a day saved you'd be miles in front.

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 7:42am:

From the people I know that use childcare services they really don't do it for the money its more about keeping their career current and active. If they drop out of the work force its harder to get back in.

This would be less of a problem once people realise that gaps in working history are not unusual, rather than an excuse for discrimination and victimisation.


RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 7:42am:

Given the numbers I have heard its not easy to keep a lid on costs for an industry that seems to struggle to keep up with demand in a regulated industry ...... loosening regulations is one option but that would create other problems. Easy to talk about harder to come up with real answers.

These problems need to be discussed. Some regulation is needed, but regulations that don't allow people to claim rebates for private childcare arrangements only constrain demand.

We need to consider alternatives, including the radical alternative of scrapping childcare rebates entirely and redirecting the money into reducing other costs for parents.

Gordon wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 1:03pm: Tough - in that case maybe childcare cash should be dropped entirely, including for public servants etc.... and the natural market be guided by family requirements ..... that's resolve unemployment in a heartbeat, and begin the Downfall of some of the social inequalities that have been shoved on this nation by stupid policy directions... Good to see that at least a few of the Party faithful and families managed to extract a few lazy millions from the childcare fiasco before it reached the reality point where it was seen for what it is - too bloody expensive in every way. Just leave them at home with a pack of fruitloops sprinkled around the house, the TV on with a loop of PlaysKoOl and a few devices with webcams so you can keep an eye on them. If you get caught the fine from DOCS would be what, $2000??  At $150 a day saved you'd be miles in front.

You have a rather unorthodox approach to parenting.

This Topic was moved here from Politicians Suck by Setanta.

The government has made childcare a lot more expensive by wrapping it in red tape. Then they pushed costs up even higher by subsidising it.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 1:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 1:12pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 1:03pm: Tough - in that case maybe childcare cash should be dropped entirely, including for public servants etc.... and the natural market be guided by family requirements ..... that's resolve unemployment in a heartbeat, and begin the Downfall of some of the social inequalities that have been shoved on this nation by stupid policy directions... Good to see that at least a few of the Party faithful and families managed to extract a few lazy millions from the childcare fiasco before it reached the reality point where it was seen for what it is - too bloody expensive in every way. Just leave them at home with a pack of fruitloops sprinkled around the house, the TV on with a loop of PlaysKoOl and a few devices with webcams so you can keep an eye on them. If you get caught the fine from DOCS would be what, $2000??  At $150 a day saved you'd be miles in front. You have a rather unorthodox approach to parenting.

I know. Fruitloops have way too much sugar.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 1:57pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: From the people I know that use childcare services they really don't do it for the money its more about keeping their career current and active. If they drop out of the work force its harder to get back in. This would be less of a problem once people realise that gaps in working history are not unusual, rather than an excuse for discrimination and victimisation. RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: Given the numbers I have heard its not easy to keep a lid on costs for an industry that seems to struggle to keep up with demand in a regulated industry ...... loosening regulations is one option but that would create other problems. Easy to talk about harder to come up with real answers. These problems need to be discussed. Some regulation is needed, but regulations that don't allow people to claim rebates for private childcare arrangements only constrain demand. We need to consider alternatives, including the radical alternative of scrapping childcare rebates entirely and redirecting the money into reducing other costs for parents.

We didn't have grandparents to help us as they live in WA. My sister used my parents as unpaid childcare.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 9:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 1:57pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: From the people I know that use childcare services they really don't do it for the money its more about keeping their career current and active. If they drop out of the work force its harder to get back in. This would be less of a problem once people realise that gaps in working history are not unusual, rather than an excuse for discrimination and victimisation. RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: Given the numbers I have heard its not easy to keep a lid on costs for an industry that seems to struggle to keep up with demand in a regulated industry ...... loosening regulations is one option but that would create other problems. Easy to talk about harder to come up with real answers. These problems need to be discussed. Some regulation is needed, but regulations that don't allow people to claim rebates for private childcare arrangements only constrain demand. We need to consider alternatives, including the radical alternative of scrapping childcare rebates entirely and redirecting the money into reducing other costs for parents. We didn't have grandparents to help us as they live in WA. My sister used my parents as unpaid childcare.

All those old farts sitting around rotting away in nursing homes, I see them as an underutilized resource.    ;D

Gordon wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 9:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 1:57pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: From the people I know that use childcare services they really don't do it for the money its more about keeping their career current and active. If they drop out of the work force its harder to get back in. This would be less of a problem once people realise that gaps in working history are not unusual, rather than an excuse for discrimination and victimisation. RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: Given the numbers I have heard its not easy to keep a lid on costs for an industry that seems to struggle to keep up with demand in a regulated industry ...... loosening regulations is one option but that would create other problems. Easy to talk about harder to come up with real answers. These problems need to be discussed. Some regulation is needed, but regulations that don't allow people to claim rebates for private childcare arrangements only constrain demand. We need to consider alternatives, including the radical alternative of scrapping childcare rebates entirely and redirecting the money into reducing other costs for parents. We didn't have grandparents to help us as they live in WA. My sister used my parents as unpaid childcare. All those old farts sitting around rotting away in nursing homes, I see them as an underutilized resource.    ;D

Absolutely. That's not they way things are done these days though. You put your olds into aged care and pay for that, put your kids into child care and pay for that so you can do everything but what you should be doing. Looking after your family.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 9:45pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 9:41pm: Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 1:57pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: From the people I know that use childcare services they really don't do it for the money its more about keeping their career current and active. If they drop out of the work force its harder to get back in. This would be less of a problem once people realise that gaps in working history are not unusual, rather than an excuse for discrimination and victimisation. RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 7:42am: Given the numbers I have heard its not easy to keep a lid on costs for an industry that seems to struggle to keep up with demand in a regulated industry ...... loosening regulations is one option but that would create other problems. Easy to talk about harder to come up with real answers. These problems need to be discussed. Some regulation is needed, but regulations that don't allow people to claim rebates for private childcare arrangements only constrain demand. We need to consider alternatives, including the radical alternative of scrapping childcare rebates entirely and redirecting the money into reducing other costs for parents. We didn't have grandparents to help us as they live in WA. My sister used my parents as unpaid childcare. All those old farts sitting around rotting away in nursing homes, I see them as an underutilized resource.    ;D Absolutely. That's not they way things are done these days though. You put your olds into aged care and pay for that, put your kids into child care and pay for that so you can do everything but what you should be doing. Looking after your family.

We're just taking the financial hit losing one income this time and not doing childcare until he's about 3, then just 2 days a week.

I reckon more small operation childcare is the go. Let the semi retired old duck down the road get the background checks and a few other certs and they can make some money.

Oh Gloom and Doom BlackDay your GetUp! inspired HATE Australia Socialist propaganda has been discreetly removed from sight.

Is this a sign you are being viewed as a reactionary plotting to overthrow the elected government ?

juliar wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 10:24pm:

Oh Gloom and Doom BlackDay your GetUp! inspired HATE Australia Socialist propaganda has been discreetly removed from sight. Is this a sign you are being viewed as a reactionary plotting to overthrow the elected government ?

Be nice if you could comment on the topic occasionally.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 10:38pm:

juliar wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 10:24pm: Oh Gloom and Doom BlackDay your GetUp! inspired HATE Australia Socialist propaganda has been discreetly removed from sight. Is this a sign you are being viewed as a reactionary plotting to overthrow the elected government ? Be nice if you could comment on the topic occasionally.

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D           :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Absolutely. That's not they way things are done these days though. You put your olds into aged care and pay for that, put your kids into child care and pay for that so you can do everything but what you should be doing. Looking after your family.

Spot On!

As for the reference to 'old farts' watch where you put your mouth (not you, Setanta) ... some of those are unarmed and dangerous.

If the subsidy was removed
If maternity and paternity leave was removed

The market woukd settle down eventually and it would be possible to afford a home on one income
Hell, if people didn't want everything brand new at 20, new car, new house new furniture
And we're willing to make do, as we did, until you were established, there woukd be no problem.

But people now days want it all and they want it now.
But we, who have worked hard and achieved, are now expected to subsidize their greed.

Stop my taxes going to these greedy kids
Give it to the starving pensioners who have worked all their lives.

Valkie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 4:29am:

If the subsidy was removed If maternity and paternity leave was removed The market woukd settle down eventually and it would be possible to afford a home on one income Hell, if people didn't want everything brand new at 20, new car, new house new furniture And we're willing to make do, as we did, until you were established, there woukd be no problem. But people now days want it all and they want it now. But we, who have worked hard and achieved, are now expected to subsidize their greed. Stop my taxes going to these greedy kids Give it to the starving pensioners who have worked all their lives.

While I support removing all these subsidies the motivation for women to choose a career as a priority is still there. This means people on the housing market are dual income for the most, people on single incomes will still struggle to buy their aspirational property (People have higher standards).

The child care solution achieves very little in reality even with high fees the industry still struggles to provide places, people do not aspire to work in childcare. A similar problem exists in nursing.

All you are highlighting is the complexity of the problem, while most women choose to be career aspirational demand pressure will continue on childcare places, its also more likely for a childcare worker to be female ..... not a corporate career choice for the majority of women.

I personally oppose social engineering exercise as like the cane toad experiment it always backfires ..... but the reality of government is dealing with peoples life choices.

As for the sexist side of what I have said sorry they have yet figured out how a male can breast feed or get pregnant !  Its biology.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

Tough - in that case maybe childcare cash should be dropped entirely, including for public servants etc.... and the natural market be guided by family requirements ..... that's resolve unemployment in a heartbeat, and begin the Downfall of some of the social inequalities that have been shoved on this nation by stupid policy directions... Good to see that at least a few of the Party faithful and families managed to extract a few lazy millions from the childcare fiasco before it reached the reality point where it was seen for what it is - too bloody expensive in every way.

Interesting rant child care is expensive for many reasons but the choice seems pretty clear women want careers more these days and a big chunk of those want children as well.

This is a social trend not a policy direction, without subsidies childcare industry would probably collapse maybe it needs to ?
As for your rant about unemployment in general there is not an unemployment issue, in fact around the major capitals there is a skill shortage, also in NSW with the booming infrastructure projects they are struggling to find all sorts of trades and professions ..... if women decided to not work that would only get worse. You are so off the mark on this point it is laughable. Some suburbs in Sydney have unemployment rates below 2% most economists regard 3% as full employment.

It would cost the economy a lot. But we need to make child care a work-related tax expense. Even getting part of the payment back on tax would be enough to get people to work. Would reduce unemployment and create some jobs.

Mum did not work whilst her three children were under the age of preschool. Once my brother started preschool, Mum restarted work. Money started to become more available then.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2018 at 9:49pm: Absolutely. That's not they way things are done these days though. You put your olds into aged care and pay for that, put your kids into child care and pay for that so you can do everything but what you should be doing. Looking after your family. Spot On! As for the reference to 'old farts' watch where you put your mouth (not you, Setanta) ... some of those are unarmed and dangerous.

Keep yer teeth in ya old bugger and don't forget I'll be dropping the kids off at 9.

Now don't forget they're both vegan,  Sarah is glutton free and Jason is corn intolerant.

We're considering transitioning Jason so he's only allowed gender neutral toys and no sugar for either.

Ta

Valkie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 4:29am:

If the subsidy was removed If maternity and paternity leave was removed The market woukd settle down eventually and it would be possible to afford a home on one income Hell, if people didn't want everything brand new at 20, new car, new house new furniture And we're willing to make do, as we did, until you were established, there woukd be no problem. But people now days want it all and they want it now. But we, who have worked hard and achieved, are now expected to subsidize their greed. Stop my taxes going to these greedy kids Give it to the starving pensioners who have worked all their lives.

We would still have a mountain of red tape and restrictions inflating the price of childcare.

The Muzzies reckon the childcare system is working very well.


https://i.imgur.com/y1rgi7w.png

If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them.

Instead of the baby bonus, subsidized child care should be provided to working parents rather than as a cash grab

UnSubRocky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 6:54am:

It would cost the economy a lot. But we need to make child care a work-related tax expense. Even getting part of the payment back on tax would be enough to get people to work. Would reduce unemployment and create some jobs. Mum did not work whilst her three children were under the age of preschool. Once my brother started preschool, Mum restarted work. Money started to become more available then.

Sounds logical except on low paid jobs were very little tax is paid.

people completely miss the point.
when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool.
and that halves the rate of pay for labour.

the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation".
but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy.
the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:43am:

people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon

Why can't men look after the kids?

I'm curious.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:43am:

people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon

Very Rubbery figures not all women stay in the work force and it did not happen in one go as your suggesting.

The reality especially in major capitals there is a labour shortage but a lot of it is skills based and areas like trades which women generally don't chose to enter ...... that is all moot the social trend (like it or not) women who have kids miss working .... some don't but combine that with cost pressures the outcome is more women are working these days. Its not going to change so the challenge for a government is how to deal with that !

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:58am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious.

Sure they can but men can not carry a baby to full term or at all, nor can they breast feed (maybe BS Shorten can) .... work continuity is more logical for the male, but given there is a labour shortage especially in the male dominated trades ........ have only one parent in the work force could create bigger problems for the economy especially if its the male staying at home.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:58am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious.

the scandinavian countries tried to promote gender equality.

and with very paradoxical results.

when you make everything equal in terms of gender, then the differences in terms of preference MAXIMISE.

i'll say that again, when you make it totally gender neutral and equal, you get MORE women doing nursing and you get MORE men doing PHYSICS.

we simply like different things.
we have different interests.

so if we make it totally gender neutral in terms of opportunities to care for kids or go to work, men will choose to work and women to look after kids.

i think this is deeply biological .
the surge of oxytocin at childbirth and the bonding is different to male bonding with children.
women are simply better at it.

the study

Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls
Gijsbert Stoet  , Drew H. Bailey , Alex M. Moore , David C. Geary
Published: April 21, 2016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
Article
Authors
Metrics
Comments
Related Content
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Method
Results
Discussion
Supporting Information
Author Contributions
References
Reader Comments (0)
Media Coverage (3)
Figures
Abstract
Despite international advancements in gender equality across a variety of societal domains, the underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields persists. In this study, we explored the possibility that the sex difference in mathematics anxiety contributes to this disparity. More specifically, we tested a number of predictions from the prominent gender stratification model, which is the leading psychological theory of cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematics anxiety and performance. To this end, we analyzed data from 761,655 15-year old students across 68 nations who participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Most importantly and contra predictions, we showed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further, although relatively more mothers work in STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average, mathematical competence more in their sons than their daughters. The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sex differences in mathematics anxiety or performance. We propose that the gender stratification model fails to account for these national patterns and that an alternative model is needed. In the discussion, we suggest how an interaction between socio-cultural values and sex-specific psychological traits can better explain these patterns. We also discuss implications for policies aiming to increase girls’ STEM participation.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 8:34am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. the scandinavian countries tried to promote gender equality. and with very paradoxical results. when you make everything equal in terms of gender, then the differences in terms of preference MAXIMISE. i'll say that again, when you make it totally gender neutral and equal, you get MORE women doing nursing and you get MORE men doing PHYSICS. we simply like different things. we have different interests. so if we make it totally gender neutral in terms of opportunities to care for kids or go to work, men will choose to work and women to look after kids. i think this is deeply biological . the surge of oxytocin at childbirth and the bonding is different to male bonding with children. women are simply better at it. the study Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls Gijsbert Stoet  , Drew H. Bailey , Alex M. Moore , David C. Geary Published: April 21, 2016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 Article Authors Metrics Comments Related Content Abstract Introduction Materials and Method Results Discussion Supporting Information Author Contributions References Reader Comments (0) Media Coverage (3) Figures Abstract Despite international advancements in gender equality across a variety of societal domains, the underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields persists. In this study, we explored the possibility that the sex difference in mathematics anxiety contributes to this disparity. More specifically, we tested a number of predictions from the prominent gender stratification model, which is the leading psychological theory of cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematics anxiety and performance. To this end, we analyzed data from 761,655 15-year old students across 68 nations who participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Most importantly and contra predictions, we showed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further, although relatively more mothers work in STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average, mathematical competence more in their sons than their daughters. The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sex differences in mathematics anxiety or performance. We propose that the gender stratification model fails to account for these national patterns and that an alternative model is needed. In the discussion, we suggest how an interaction between socio-cultural values and sex-specific psychological traits can better explain these patterns. We also discuss implications for policies aiming to increase girls’ STEM participation.

That's nurture, not nature.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 9:21am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:34am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. the scandinavian countries tried to promote gender equality. and with very paradoxical results. when you make everything equal in terms of gender, then the differences in terms of preference MAXIMISE. i'll say that again, when you make it totally gender neutral and equal, you get MORE women doing nursing and you get MORE men doing PHYSICS. we simply like different things. we have different interests. so if we make it totally gender neutral in terms of opportunities to care for kids or go to work, men will choose to work and women to look after kids. i think this is deeply biological . the surge of oxytocin at childbirth and the bonding is different to male bonding with children. women are simply better at it. the study Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls Gijsbert Stoet  , Drew H. Bailey , Alex M. Moore , David C. Geary Published: April 21, 2016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 Article Authors Metrics Comments Related Content Abstract Introduction Materials and Method Results Discussion Supporting Information Author Contributions References Reader Comments (0) Media Coverage (3) Figures Abstract Despite international advancements in gender equality across a variety of societal domains, the underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields persists. In this study, we explored the possibility that the sex difference in mathematics anxiety contributes to this disparity. More specifically, we tested a number of predictions from the prominent gender stratification model, which is the leading psychological theory of cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematics anxiety and performance. To this end, we analyzed data from 761,655 15-year old students across 68 nations who participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Most importantly and contra predictions, we showed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further, although relatively more mothers work in STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average, mathematical competence more in their sons than their daughters. The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sex differences in mathematics anxiety or performance. We propose that the gender stratification model fails to account for these national patterns and that an alternative model is needed. In the discussion, we suggest how an interaction between socio-cultural values and sex-specific psychological traits can better explain these patterns. We also discuss implications for policies aiming to increase girls’ STEM participation. That's nurture, not nature.

try to focus.

when the scandinavians embarked on arranging their culture so that their were NO differences in nurture (the environment was gender neutral), they expected men and women to equalise in career choice.

but they UNEXPECTANTLY found the opposite.

Women , when treated absolutley equally drifted to the feminine nurturing professions and men drifted to the STEM professions.

we are biologically different and our interests are different.
and when you equalise the environment, the biological differences MAXIMISE

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 10:14am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 9:21am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:34am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. the scandinavian countries tried to promote gender equality. and with very paradoxical results. when you make everything equal in terms of gender, then the differences in terms of preference MAXIMISE. i'll say that again, when you make it totally gender neutral and equal, you get MORE women doing nursing and you get MORE men doing PHYSICS. we simply like different things. we have different interests. so if we make it totally gender neutral in terms of opportunities to care for kids or go to work, men will choose to work and women to look after kids. i think this is deeply biological . the surge of oxytocin at childbirth and the bonding is different to male bonding with children. women are simply better at it. the study Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls Gijsbert Stoet  , Drew H. Bailey , Alex M. Moore , David C. Geary Published: April 21, 2016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 Article Authors Metrics Comments Related Content Abstract Introduction Materials and Method Results Discussion Supporting Information Author Contributions References Reader Comments (0) Media Coverage (3) Figures Abstract Despite international advancements in gender equality across a variety of societal domains, the underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields persists. In this study, we explored the possibility that the sex difference in mathematics anxiety contributes to this disparity. More specifically, we tested a number of predictions from the prominent gender stratification model, which is the leading psychological theory of cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematics anxiety and performance. To this end, we analyzed data from 761,655 15-year old students across 68 nations who participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Most importantly and contra predictions, we showed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further, although relatively more mothers work in STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average, mathematical competence more in their sons than their daughters. The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sex differences in mathematics anxiety or performance. We propose that the gender stratification model fails to account for these national patterns and that an alternative model is needed. In the discussion, we suggest how an interaction between socio-cultural values and sex-specific psychological traits can better explain these patterns. We also discuss implications for policies aiming to increase girls’ STEM participation. That's nurture, not nature. try to focus. when the scandinavians embarked on arranging their culture so that their were NO differences in nurture (the environment was gender neutral), they expected men and women to equalise in career choice. but they UNEXPECTANTLY found the opposite. Women , when treated absolutley equally drifted to the feminine nurturing professions and men drifted to the STEM professions. we are biologically different and our interests are different. and when you equalise the environment, the biological differences MAXIMISE

This is why we should provide equal opportunity but not try to engineer equal outcomes.

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:38am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Feb 5th, 2018 at 6:54am: It would cost the economy a lot. But we need to make child care a work-related tax expense. Even getting part of the payment back on tax would be enough to get people to work. Would reduce unemployment and create some jobs. Mum did not work whilst her three children were under the age of preschool. Once my brother started preschool, Mum restarted work. Money started to become more available then. Sounds logical except on low paid jobs were very little tax is paid.

It is irrelevant how much you earn. It is relevant how much you pay for childcare. That should be partially rebated for people who work. Otherwise, children should be given a place to play at workplaces, within reason.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 10:14am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 9:21am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:34am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. the scandinavian countries tried to promote gender equality. and with very paradoxical results. when you make everything equal in terms of gender, then the differences in terms of preference MAXIMISE. i'll say that again, when you make it totally gender neutral and equal, you get MORE women doing nursing and you get MORE men doing PHYSICS. we simply like different things. we have different interests. so if we make it totally gender neutral in terms of opportunities to care for kids or go to work, men will choose to work and women to look after kids. i think this is deeply biological . the surge of oxytocin at childbirth and the bonding is different to male bonding with children. women are simply better at it. the study Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls Gijsbert Stoet  , Drew H. Bailey , Alex M. Moore , David C. Geary Published: April 21, 2016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 Article Authors Metrics Comments Related Content Abstract Introduction Materials and Method Results Discussion Supporting Information Author Contributions References Reader Comments (0) Media Coverage (3) Figures Abstract Despite international advancements in gender equality across a variety of societal domains, the underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields persists. In this study, we explored the possibility that the sex difference in mathematics anxiety contributes to this disparity. More specifically, we tested a number of predictions from the prominent gender stratification model, which is the leading psychological theory of cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematics anxiety and performance. To this end, we analyzed data from 761,655 15-year old students across 68 nations who participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Most importantly and contra predictions, we showed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further, although relatively more mothers work in STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average, mathematical competence more in their sons than their daughters. The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sex differences in mathematics anxiety or performance. We propose that the gender stratification model fails to account for these national patterns and that an alternative model is needed. In the discussion, we suggest how an interaction between socio-cultural values and sex-specific psychological traits can better explain these patterns. We also discuss implications for policies aiming to increase girls’ STEM participation. That's nurture, not nature. try to focus. when the scandinavians embarked on arranging their culture so that their were NO differences in nurture (the environment was gender neutral), they expected men and women to equalise in career choice. but they UNEXPECTANTLY found the opposite. Women , when treated absolutley equally drifted to the feminine nurturing professions and men drifted to the STEM professions. we are biologically different and our interests are different. and when you equalise the environment, the biological differences MAXIMISE

Nope.

It's nurture.

Thousands of years of conditioning.

Gordon wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 10:42am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 10:14am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 9:21am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:34am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. the scandinavian countries tried to promote gender equality. and with very paradoxical results. when you make everything equal in terms of gender, then the differences in terms of preference MAXIMISE. i'll say that again, when you make it totally gender neutral and equal, you get MORE women doing nursing and you get MORE men doing PHYSICS. we simply like different things. we have different interests. so if we make it totally gender neutral in terms of opportunities to care for kids or go to work, men will choose to work and women to look after kids. i think this is deeply biological . the surge of oxytocin at childbirth and the bonding is different to male bonding with children. women are simply better at it. the study Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls Gijsbert Stoet  , Drew H. Bailey , Alex M. Moore , David C. Geary Published: April 21, 2016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 Article Authors Metrics Comments Related Content Abstract Introduction Materials and Method Results Discussion Supporting Information Author Contributions References Reader Comments (0) Media Coverage (3) Figures Abstract Despite international advancements in gender equality across a variety of societal domains, the underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields persists. In this study, we explored the possibility that the sex difference in mathematics anxiety contributes to this disparity. More specifically, we tested a number of predictions from the prominent gender stratification model, which is the leading psychological theory of cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematics anxiety and performanceshowed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further, although relatively more mothers work in STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average, mathematical competence more in their sons than their daughters. The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sex differences in mathematics anxiety or performance. We propose that the gender stratification model fails to account for these national patterns and that an alternative model is needed. In the discussion, we suggest how an interaction between socio-cultural values and sex-specific psychological traits can better explain these patterns. We also discuss implications for policies aiming to increase girls’ STEM participation. That's nurture, not nature. try to focus. when the scandinavians embarked on arranging their culture so that their were NO differences in nurture (the environment was gender neutral), they expected men and women to equalise in career choice. but they UNEXPECTANTLY found the opposite. Women , when treated absolutley equally drifted to the feminine nurturing professions and men drifted to the STEM professions. we are biologically different and our interests are different. and when you equalise the environment, the biological differences MAXIMISE This is why we should provide equal opportunity but not try to engineer equal outcomes.

for sure Gordon, but its very interesting that women dont want to do those high pressure jobs.

why are most CEO's men?

because a CEO probably has to be working all the time. he probably has to take phone calls at midnight and solve very complex problems, he has to be insane enough to sacrifice everything else to work from the moment he opens his eyes til he drops asleep at midnight.

from a biological POV, a woman can have a baby and thats "creative".

but a man cant.
He has to "create " a company or serve some other function. its why men are tinkerers with cars or liking building things.

we are basicly different.

i am serious when i say we will be seeing womens movement having  "burn your briefcase " celebrations.

women are becoming intensely unhappy with these new roles.
they are deeply resentful of the fact that men are now increasingly spineless and they cant get aroused for these sad pukes.

we shall see masculinity and femininity increasingly go thru a resurgence.

I've heard women talk about how in the corporate environment they've been bullied, undermined, sabotaged and generally treated very poorly...by men.

Well guess what, men get the exact same treatment.

I did alright when I was in a corporate setting but I very quickly realised I had no desire to roll with the sociopathic men AND WOMEN who inhabit the march up the corporate ladder.

I've seen men who were really smart and talented get cut to ribbons buy the people who thought they were a threat to slow their way to the top.

Gordon wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 11:13am:

I've heard women talk about how in the corporate environment they've been bullied, undermined, sabotaged and generally treated very poorly...by men. Well guess what, men get the exact same treatment. I did alright when I was in a corporate setting but I very quickly realised I had no desire to roll with the sociopathic men AND WOMEN who inhabit the march up the corporate ladder. I've seen men who were really smart and talented get cut to ribbons buy the people who thought they were a threat to slow their way to the top.

well thats sad gordon.
i think women are just too sensible to work 80 hours a week and get an ulcer and have a failed relationship with their family , just to get to a position of crushing and brutal responsibility.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 11:40am:

Gordon wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 11:13am: I've heard women talk about how in the corporate environment they've been bullied, undermined, sabotaged and generally treated very poorly...by men. Well guess what, men get the exact same treatment. I did alright when I was in a corporate setting but I very quickly realised I had no desire to roll with the sociopathic men AND WOMEN who inhabit the march up the corporate ladder. I've seen men who were really smart and talented get cut to ribbons buy the people who thought they were a threat to slow their way to the top. well thats sad gordon. i think women are just too sensible to work 80 hours a week and get an ulcer and have a failed relationship with their family , just to get to a position of crushing and brutal responsibility.

Just like the BS at Google with James Damore. Very few women has the desire to do what he does. Oh and look who agrees with him....

According to Wojcicki, one reason for the lack of women in tech is its reputation for being a "very geeky male industry." 

https://mashable.com/2018/01/29/google-youtube-women-in-tech-diversity-town-hall/#k3jPZjUIHOq7

UnSubRocky wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 10:54am:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:38am: UnSubRocky wrote on Feb 5th, 2018 at 6:54am: It would cost the economy a lot. But we need to make child care a work-related tax expense. Even getting part of the payment back on tax would be enough to get people to work. Would reduce unemployment and create some jobs. Mum did not work whilst her three children were under the age of preschool. Once my brother started preschool, Mum restarted work. Money started to become more available then. Sounds logical except on low paid jobs were very little tax is paid. It is irrelevant how much you earn. It is relevant how much you pay for childcare. That should be partially rebated for people who work. Otherwise, children should be given a place to play at workplaces, within reason.

Some employers do this. Unfortunately they also have to pay fringe benefits tax which in the end discourages the practice. Go figure.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:58am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious.

They can, one of us was always home. We put our kids before our pockets.

Setanta wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. They can, one of us was always home. We put our kids before our pockets.

Ditto.

I took a year off for my first born.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:22pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 6:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:58am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 7:43am: people completely miss the point. when women entered the workplace EN MASSE, they doubled the labour pool. and that halves the rate of pay for labour. the 60's were the time of "burn your bras" and "liberation". but the next decade will be the time when women "burn their breifcases" and go back to looking after their own dam kids and we will see real wages rise if they do, womens happiness rise if they do and children developing a relationship with their parents and no seeing "the state" as mummy and daddy. the whole thing has been an evolutionary dead end and it will see a U turn very soon Why can't men look after the kids? I'm curious. They can, one of us was always home. We put our kids before our pockets. Ditto. I took a year off for my first born.

First of out kids was born in '88 the second 4 years later, the third 2 years later. I could work from home often(IT) but I had to work part time. My wife also worked part time. My super sucks, much like women cry about theirs because of that lack of hours but to me it was worth it, that's the sacrifice you make for your kids. Unfortunately I don't have anyone championing my "wage gap" and lack of super.

I knew what I was doing and I wouldn't do it differently over again and I won't whine about it either.

I took as year off for my first born, too...... the company called me back when they were desperate for talent.... that's why I was on $50k + in 1988, rising to $100k+ four years later..... in those day's dollars, not now's dollars....  I was earning as much as a useless seat-warming politician does now - by sheer hard work, integrity and loyalty.

In 1988 you could buy a house in Sydney for $100k .... so work out for yourselves what my work was worth.... but I earned every cent.

No Far Ken childcare, either.

I have forgotten what the cost of living was like in 1988. But 100k per year would be absolutely raking it in. A relative of mine worked in the mines, and he was doing 5-figure yearly salaries before he retired. But not much more over 5-figures. So, I could imagine that you would have been doing very well for yourself.

For what it is worth, I can only remember the late 1990s being about 60% the cost of living of today's. In 1988, I would assume that the cost of living was about 35% of today's.

UnSubRocky wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 1:08am:

I have forgotten what the cost of living was like in 1988. But 100k per year would be absolutely raking it in. A relative of mine worked in the mines, and he was doing 5-figure yearly salaries before he retired. But not much more over 5-figures. So, I could imagine that you would have been doing very well for yourself. For what it is worth, I can only remember the late 1990s being about 60% the cost of living of today's. In 1988, I would assume that the cost of living was about 35% of today's.

The purchasing power of a dollar is about 1/3 what it was then, so $100k would be around $300k now.  Not a bludge job, either, though I should have become a politician if I'd only known the perks.