Are Nurseries the New Sweat Shops?!?

[Ponyboy]

Just read this interesting article in the "Loop Magazine" - a lift out from the Queensland Times (Ipswich newspaper).

Titled: "Are Nurseries the Next Sweat Shops?", it discusses how mothers/parents are paid $3000 (will be going up to $4000 in July 06) on the birth of their child. This equates (if calculated over a 15 year period - kids usually don't get a job till then) 4 cents a day to do one of the hardest jobs - parenting!! It mentions that the poorest paid worker in the world gets 23 cents an hour.

It then mentions - to top it off, women are now expected to work as well as be mothers (e.g. when Centerlink introduces the SAHM must work 15hrs a week when all children are at school or else will lose benefits). It says: "Women are supposed, nay expected, to simultaneously sprout out three children to keep both their husband and country happy and healthy, actually participate in parenthood and bring home a full-time wage." Although I don't agree with that statement, some of what it says is really an underlying expectation of today's women.

It uses the above as an excuse as to why the national birth rate is falling - due to women being exhausted "by the time she gets home she doesn't give a stuff about DH, and all DD/DS can think is 'if that is me in twenty years I'm going to kill myself'."

Sorry for lots of quoting. "[A woman] has choices. She can choose the hard way and go to work, pilfer her wage in childcare and be exhausted, or choose the other hard way and SAH trying to raise her family on one salary thereby slaughtering hopes of career advancement. Option C is a bit of A and a bit of B - equally as hard though - she can remain childless, painted by our society as barren, selfish, alone and the core source of our declining population. But don't worry, we've been promised $4000 by 2008 (an extra 1.2 cents a week), phew!! Poverty averted.

Any thoughts??

I know in the past parents were not paid $3000 at all so the parents having children now at least get some financial assistance. But as it states, is $3000 really enough. Especially with the govn. wanting us to increase the population. Really is 4cents a day enough?!? But on the other hand - are women today expected to work and be parents? Or is that a expectation we've placed on ourselves??

Child crying so must run!!

[Rainbowbrite]

My husband earns a very bad wage, & what i do get in FTB's is no-where near enough to survive on, BUT there is NO WAY i'm going back to work. I had a baby to "have" a baby, not to pay others to raise it. Just my opinion on the subject. When MJ goes to school, I may get a part time job, or i may not. Though I want to be here before she leaves for school & when she gets home. My mother was there for me & my siblings, why not give my daughter the same life? I dont think thats anyones business certainly not the business of the government or anyone else.

[Tea Lady]

My understanding is that the $3000 isn't really meant to be like a wage - more of a helping hand in getting established.

I think in the past when most families had one income people generally didn't expect to have as much "stuff" - heaps of things people take for granted now would have been seen as absolute riches when I was a kid (and it wasn't THAT long ago!). I think in a way we do put the expectation on ourselves that women "should" be earning money, but it's also an expectation of a society which seems to think that peoples' worth is determined by how much money they earn (at least to some extent). I have no intention of going back to paid work in the forseeable future, but I find it wierd that I often feel I have to justify that to people as if it's a bit of a lazy waste of time to be a SAHM. :confused:

[SassyMummy]

I don't think it's a payment that you're meant to spend daily...it's a one-off payment to help you with the start-up fees involved in having a baby. When you look at what you need for a baby-starter kit, I think 3000 is reasonable...providing you don't spend 1000 on a cot, and totally re-vamp your house to accommodate a nursery, a play-room and a water-park in the backyard. lol.

I think 3000 is a decent amount to recieve in order to buy items such as: Baby rompers and clothes, nappies, bottles, a cot, a mattress, car-seat, pram, change-table, a few toys, a few products, bedding... it's really only meant as a START UP helper...not meant to help you raise your kids!

If you're REALLY strapped for cash, you're entitled for Centrelink benefits of up to around $850 per fortnight for 1 child in a single-parent family including max rent assistance.

I do think that sometimes it's not enough to survive, but it really is enough to survive...it's just not enough to have little "extras". I think that nowadays we're too focussed on getting all sorts of luxury items...like iPods, alcohol, chocolate biscuits, foxtel, brand-new cars...if you can't afford those things, then I think the simple answer is to not buy them. You don't NEED them, after all.

Some people I know whinge about not earning enough to live...but they pay hundreds a week on their morgage, plus payments on their brand new four-wheeler, plus swim lessons for the kids, plus foxtel, plus cigarettes...blah blah...you COULD give up certain things to improve your financial situation.

[MumsieMel]

:no: :idea:

[candlelover]

when we had our 3rd child i knew that i would not want to go back to work fulltime, i had already missed to much with the boys and didn't want to miss out on anymore. The $3000 came in handy as it was a big change going from 2 good incomes to one, but being home with the kids and doing homework with my eldest instead of paying a tutor if well worth not having all the extra's. i will only get to enjoy my kids growing up once but i can always go back to work.