I know many new mums at my work are worried that when they return to work they have to take a bit of time off as young children get sick all the time in daycare. They are worried about what people will think about them. The mums usually take turns in having days off with their partner. Some even do split days (eg mum works 6am-1pm hubby works 1:30-8pm) so that both parents can work near full days (I understand this is not possible with some workplaces).
+ Reply to Thread
Results 391 to 400 of 509
13-05-2015 20:53 #391-
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
13-05-2015 21:19 #392
when the GFC happened, Labour increased spending substantially ... our GDP (and therefore tax revenue) at that point was very high - so if spending was at 26% of GDP then that is with an increased spend and high revenue base.
As the GFC takes effect - and we were substantially insulated from it due to the mining boom which has now substantially come off the boil - our GDP drops .. and our tax revenue drops substantially. The spending has reduced (no school halls, no cash handouts etc) - but with a reduced economy, it means that even with reduced spending we have a much higher % of GDP and of revenue.
so if you GDP is 100b and spending is 26b your spending is 26% of GDP.
If your GDP reduces to 80b then spending of 20.8b is still 26% ... so you can have cut spending by 5.2b (or 20%) and still have the same ratio's.
And we have a substantial interest bill in that 20.8b spend now that we didnt have before.
The budget deficit issue isnt in spending cuts etc ... the issue is the reduced tax take the government is receiving.
That isnt Labor's fault btw - I am not blaming either party. Just explaining the economics.
Statistics are used to demonstrate an argument - and each party will produce stats which paint the picture they want.
13-05-2015 21:27 #393Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
I forgot about Rudd's policy. Too bad about the whole Rudd - Gillard - Rudd debacle. It would have been better than the current situation.
13-05-2015 21:35 #394Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
Sorry, you are right. I am getting confused because I read somewhere about 3 years ago when they were still in opposition that under their proposed scheme at the time - Clive Palmer's wife would have been eligible for PPL. Which in my mind equated to millionaire - even though she technically isn't but her husband is. If you know what I mean.
No need to be so patronising though, we are just having a conversation. Just because we don't politically align doesn't mean we can't be civil.
I would like to add I absolutely support a PPL scheme, I think we are so behind in terms of things like that. And you are right, so many other countries manage it, we should be too. I just don't agree that the LNP package is more palatable than Labor's.
Last edited by beebs; 13-05-2015 at 21:43.
13-05-2015 21:41 #395Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
He has taken 2 days off this week while DS4 was in hospital because someone had to be here with the other kids. It isn't just 10 days VP, it is 5-7 days every 6 weeks-2 months when he is well - that is when it isn't too bad. When it is bad it is every 2-3 weeks and sick for 5-7 days at a time and hospitalised. This won't be an issue in 5 years when apparently they will find a cure for asthma (yay), but right now - it is a big issue. That is what happens when someone is chronically ill, when they are to ill to go to daycare and when you have no family support. It won't stop me getting a job, I've got my CV ready to go. I just wonder how long it will be before it gets too much for whoever decides to employ me
Last edited by beebs; 13-05-2015 at 22:01.
13-05-2015 21:45 #396
So I have thought it over, and I am feeling quite positive about the budget changes to child care. The statistics are that the average family will be $30 per week better off. There was a discussion on here ages ago about the proposed PPL scheme, and I (and plenty of other hubbers) agreed that it was a short term solution, and better subsidised child care was a much better, long term solution for mothers. Now we have it, and we are still complaining! I am a SAHM, but I have chosen not to return to work in the past because child care costs were so high, it wasn't worth it. I will reconsider when my baby is 1. The originally proposed PPL scheme was never a good plan. It is so much better to make child care more affordable, so that ALL mothers have the option of returning to work. Or can choose to stay home, like myself - but we are a family of 5 happily doing fine on a 55k income, and are able to adjust our spending for me to stay home. I know for others, that isn't possible, and so I think highly subsidised child care is the way to go if we want mothers to be able to return to work.
The Following User Says Thank You to cheeeeesecake For This Useful Post:
13-05-2015 21:45 #397Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:
13-05-2015 22:34 #398
Interesting piece on female workforce participation in Australia.
Mythbusting: Women, childcare & paid parental leave
How does the 2015 budget impacts families? That was, in a nutshell, my brief for an appearance on ABC's Lateline last night. Luckily for me the majority of the measures impacting families had been announced prior to the Budget lock up so I had a head-start on the issues. This is the case I wanted to mount.
Why do we need to pay anything for day orphanages?
(I have paraphrased Fred Nile & Senator David Leyonhjelm)
The case for investing in childcare and paid parental leave is not well understood in Australia. To say the very least. This is why every second day, or daily in a bad week, you are likely to read/see/hear a variation of the following:
Day Orphanages ruin children
Millionaire mums rort the system
Back in our day we lived on one income
If you can't afford children don't have them
Why don't these greedy, lazy women just look after their own children and not expect a cent in return?
(NB for another day perhaps we should dissect why mums are referred to so disparagingly?)
Having children is legitimate and desirable in Australia.
Parents (mums and dads) working is also legitimate and desirable. It increases the tax base, boosts productivity and it provides families with greater economic security. It's also the most effective way that women can have a shot at accumulating wealth as opposed to accumulating poverty over the course of their lives.
Supporting these two legitimate and desirable objectives requires an array of policy settings.
Previously two parents working was less common than it is now but Australia's infrastructure has not caught up. Our tax system, community attitudes, corporate behaviour and the short supply of childcare are a few of the barriers which currently limit the engagement of women in paid work.
The impact of this is borne out in Australia's female workforce participation rate which sits at 68% and hasn't moved much in the past decade. We rank 52nd in the world for our workforce participation which is particularly curious given we rank first in the world for educating women.
The gap between male and female workforce participation matters but don't take my word for it. Why would the world's economic and finance leaders resolve at thelast G20 meeting to tackle this gap if it weren't a pressing economic concern? Hint: It is.
Inequality is expensive as well as contributing to a raft of undesirable outcomes.
In Australia the Intergenerational Report underscores the relevance of this point again. We need as many women working as possible.
The oft-quoted fact is that if we boosted our female workforce participation rate 4 percentage points to Canada's level we would add $25 billion to our GDP each year.
How did Canada get so much further ahead? It wasn't an accident. From 1997, various Canadian governments introduced a range of reforms that reduced the disincentives for women to work. This included tax cuts for low and middle-income families which increased the take home pay of second income earners. Critically, Canada committed to improving the accessibility, and subsidising the cost, of childcare.
They determined that removing disincentives for women to work would pay off in the long term.
Australia is yet to make the same decisive commitment. Worse still, is the fact this case hasn't been effectively presented. Whilst other countries are busily narrowing the gap between men and women at work, we are still floating about in a place where women have to justify or explain working.
It's not just about workforce participation
Improving access to childcare will have a positive impact on women's workforce participation. That is not, however, the only compelling reason for investing in high quality early learning and care.
A PWC report from last year shows that the long term social and economic benefits gained from the provision of high quality early education exceed the potential productivity gains. Quality education and care programs deliver.
"This study estimates a cumulative benefit to GDP by 2050 of $13.3 billion if children whose parents are in the lowest income bracket — and are unlikely to attend an early childhood program — attend a program." PwC partner Tony Peak says. "The study finds a cumulative positive impact on GDP of up to $29.6 billion by 2050 and an estimated net fiscal benefit of between $1.6 and $1.9 billion in the same period."
Australia spends 0.2% of its national GDP on pre-primary education. This is 3 times less than the OECD average of 0.6% which means out of 33 countries we rank last.
Double dippers: The great hoax & a great shame
Need proof that Australia's community attitudes around women and work are stuck back in the 1950s? Take a look at the comments thread on any story or social media post from the past few days arguing for "double-dippers".
I will reiterate the earlier point that having children and working is legitimate and desirable from a national perspective. It does, however, require certain policies and structures.
Paid parental leave is one such policy that is critical in this regard. Why do 32 out of 33 OECD countries provide paid parental leave? The purpose is not simply to generate that warm feeling that a Huggies ad tends to generate. Paid parental leave promotes long term health and economic benefits.
The optimal period of time for a mother to be with a baby to achieve these benefits is 26 weeks; this is recognised by the World Health Organisation and the NHMRC.
Anything that moves Australian mothers closer to being able to spend 26 weeks with their baby, moves us towards those health and economic benefits. That is why reducing the paid leave offered to 79,000 Australian women is an anathema.
This is the framework by which Australia's policy settings need to be judged. As it stands we're doing badly.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to ExcuseMyFrench For This Useful Post:
A-Squared (14-05-2015),Adoralicious (13-05-2015),AdornedWithCats (13-05-2015),beebs (14-05-2015),BH-KatiesMum (14-05-2015),btmacxxx (14-05-2015),Falkor (14-05-2015),LaDiDah (14-05-2015),Lil Smurfy (14-05-2015),Preshy2008 (14-05-2015),Pusheen The Cat (14-05-2015),Sabre (22-05-2015),ScubaGal (14-05-2015),TeaM (15-05-2015)
14-05-2015 01:58 #399
The problem with the left is that they attacked the policy because it was liberal, the sort of vitriol towards the policy I would hear even from sensible friends made me so mad and it centred around these kinds of arguments that the money would be all about women on 150k getting a new Lexus.
But there are hardly any women on that kind of salary who are still fertile. I'm on 100k and there are relatively few women even in that bracket who are still in their fertile years.
And let me just point out once again that being on 100k doesn't necessarily mean you are rolling in the cash if you are the primary breadwinner, as I and so many are.
With a teacher husband on 35k our combined income is much closer to say a couple of senior midwives, not the demon rich lady, champagne sipping, flatscreen TV buying, laughing all the way to the bank stereotype that is raised whenever this discussion comes up.
But I'm not even the real issue, don't cry for me Argentina, what about women who are single parents? Their income is all they've got. How will they breastfeed and be the breadwinner?
What about women on average wages? 18w at min wage lasts only 9 weeks at covering your regular bills and now they'll be penalised - losing that too all because a minority have a good workplace scheme that.
It would have benefited all the women on average wages by actually giving them a replacement wage.
See here's the crux of the thing that really ****es me off.
Critics of ppl talk about it like its a gift or a prize. You had a baby, well done here's some money for a flat screen TV.
It's not. It's about replacing a woman's wage because womens wages are important and should be valued - so that she can simply continue to exist whilst caring for a bub in the early months when she is needed as the primary carer.
Anything that delivers less than this creates a gap and if the gap is too big, she will scrimp and save as much as she can but ultimately it restricts time with the baby.
There's more than enough evidence to show that a proper break for mum to be with Bub early on is better for the baby, the mum and the company and the economy - it costs much more if the woman comes back too early and then can't cope and is replaced.
Companies however, can't lead the way on this because they all bargain individually, the point of a government scheme is to drive alignment and social change over time.
Except now we are going backwards.
I used to work in policy for the commonwealth. It wouldn't have been hard to design a policy that says: we recognise that it's recommended women take six months off with Bub. If womens employers are providing six months at full pay then those women won't get the govt scheme, and women whose employers pay less than six months, say less than even 2 months like mine - maybe get the difference.
Wouldn't have been hard at all.
Except there aren't enough women in that position for the saving to be very big - and there is the flaw in their argument. There isn't really an army of wealthy double dippers out there, in fact there isn't enough to deliver a measurable saving.
Make no mistake ladies. You're just being screwed.
I'd love to see women voters united on these issues, but by keeping us divided instead of blanket support for a good, fair scheme is how we keep getting shafted.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:
14-05-2015 02:40 #400
@ScubaGal the only problem with your potential policy is that any decent employer would drop their own scheme. Why pay for something that the gvt will pay for you if you don't?
I'm convinced that if men were the one carrying babies we would have a generous PPL policy for a looooong time.
Although if they were carrying babies maybe they wouldn't be the one in powers, women would! Ha
The Following User Says Thank You to ExcuseMyFrench For This Useful Post:
By beebs in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 267Last Post: 07-07-2014, 12:12
By loislane2010 in forum General ChatReplies: 50Last Post: 24-05-2014, 13:49
By Ellewood in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 17Last Post: 18-05-2014, 18:44
Baby U & The Wiggles - Toilet Training ProductsToilet training can be a testing time but Baby U is there to assist you and your toddler with the daunting task of ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Food supplements for kidsGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Tell me about your high school reunion/s!General Chat
Am I the only thread killer??General Chat
TTC later in the yearConception & Fertility General Chat
Seeking advice on more kidsGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
IUI - first time fertility treatmentNon-IVF fertility assistance
IVF babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017pregnancy and babies through IVF