How the fuck are people expected to have kids when they need to work work work just to live. So many people can barely support themselves, much less be expected to support two other individuals. And it is two because all these articles keep harping on about the “replacement rate”. No one in power seems to want to do anything to actually help aside from funneling more taxes into corporate leeches with increasing subsidies.
Just let in more immigrants, problem solved in the government’s opinion.
Migrating to Australia is very expensive so they may even make a return on it.
We need a plan not just one fix. Governments are supposed to look at the whole picture and make changes so that the economy and society as a whole ‘sings’. They are supposed to make plans for the near, medium and far future. All we’ve had for the past decade is right-wing governments getting into power and then everything they did from then on was about winning the next election at any cost - they were parasites that did nothing to improve pretty much anything, and now we are suffering because of that.
We need a plan like Germany and Japan had after WWII to transition their destroyed countries into economic powerhouses 30 years later. We need long term planning like Norway has done with their resources and their sovereign fund. Yes we need big-australia immigration but combine it with education improvements and so on - do this and this other thing, and combine it with that because of this reason, and the result of all these things combined will be greater than the sum of their parts.
If we don’t start planning we will continue to suffer and living standards will continue to nose-dive.
Ngl, you had me in the first half of the first sentence of the second paragraph.
To jump on my soapbox for a minute, we as a society need to recognise that times have changed.
Once upon a time, most households survived on a single income, with one partner (normally the mother) staying at home to do the necessary work there and raise the children.
This is fundamentally no longer the case.
Now both partners have to work, perhaps multiple jobs.
The grandparents still have to work.
The parents may have had to move away to find that work.Full time child care should be free for tax payers.
Yes that will be expensive.
Yes people will rort it.I don’t care.
It pays a societal benefit to have educated, well fed, healthy children.
Even the poorest ones.
Perhaps especially the poorest ones.It’s interesting to me that you point out how far we have fallen as a society, yet your suggested solution is free childcare to enable more of the same.
As humans shouldn’t we be asking harder questions? Why is our entire family structure working longer and harder for less?
The change we need is single income households being viable again and our elderly being in a position to retire.
As an educator, childcare is education first and foremost.
We’re not a parents baby sitters while they’re at work.
The double income household is not an indicator of a fall in my opinion, it’s just what is.
IMO, any attempt to change the culture back is a fools errand, we have to address the status quo.
Dual income households are only essential as incomes haven’t kept pace with the increase to living costs. The working class were conned into it being the new normal.
You’ve taken it a step further by saying that even grandparents are working longer which reduces babysitting options.
Yet at no point have you identified you’ve been hoodwinked. You just want to keep pressing forward, working harder for longer with free childcare. Worse still you don’t seem to understand that it is a fall as we are all worse off because of it.
Single income households were the historical norm because running a household physically required it.
Regardless of the technological revolutions which reduced that necessity, the culture was frozen: women stayed at home.
Then a World War happened and a metaphorical bridge was crossed, women were sent to work in droves and the taboo was broken.
I want to change a lot of things about Australian culture, starting with universal healthcare/education/childcare and perhaps even going so far as a basic income.
But I’m a pragmatist.
If You/I/The Government tried to roll that culture back, there would be extreme pushback from many people, especially women.
There’s no blinding me to the fact that whilst we are all working harder, trying to tell any segment of the population that they CAN’T participate is not going to work.
Any attempt to legislate that change is not going to work.Whilst massive problems will continue to exist for the forseeable future, racial prejudice, gender inequality and homophobia are no longer simply accepted in our culture.
Are these things also indicative of the fall?
So now you’re attempting to strawman this into a gender issue and people not being allowed to work?
One income per household should be enough. We didn’t get a good deal on dual income. Things are arguably harder now for the middle class.
I’ve no interest in the genders or sexual preferences of households, just that it is financially viable for only one of them to work. This is no longer the case, and trying to sell it as equality is believing the lie.
A lot of your language implies you think this was a chosen path.
We didn’t get offered any of this.
We’ve drifted here over decades, through a variety of economic factors.Double income households becoming common was a large player in making them necessary.
And I haven’t heard how you’d change that.
The inflation that means one income is no longer enough would have to be addressed in some way, probably with a massive devaluation of housing.
My point has always been that as human beings we should demand more of our government and more from our society. We should be striving for a society where one person in a household working is enough to own a home and bring up children if they choose.
We have a limited number of years on this planet and working harder for longer, and having our parents working harder for longer doesn’t seem like an optimal way to spent them.
Yeah the idea is aspirational, I argue we need to be. The focus should be on improving our quality of life and not on more ways to enable more of our family members to work more and see each other less just so we can raise the average house value to 2 million.
I don’t see a strawman there. You seem to be assuming that women were originally forced to start working because suddenly dual incomes became necessary. In reality many women and men prefer the satisfaction of being able to exercise skills and perform work beyond housekeeping. Saying one income should be enough ignores the fact that in many couples, neither partner wants to have no career.
If nothing else, it’s not pragmatic to be the one that doesn’t work. Divorce or the death of a spouse can happen. If a person who never worked is suddenly left to fend for themselves, they find themselves in a job market with no experience or job history.
Once you have both people in a household wanting to work, and the resulting higher spending capacity of double incomes, inflation starts to take effect and drag everyone else along.
It can also be two people working half the time instead of full time. I would love to work only 18-20 hours a week to keep something productive in my life where results matter and do whatever else I want for the rest of the hours.
World Wars brought women to the workforce which is a great thing.
The capitalism system from the 70s onward brought the shitty situation we are in right now where both partner must work to even be able to afford a place to live and a little bit of variety in the food they eat. The difference here is that the choice was removed.
Any attempt to legislate that change is not going to work.
taxation works, all we need do is enforce it.
Why do you assume a single income household means 1) a heterosexual household and 2) the man is the one that works?
Stop thinking like that.
I gave up a job to became a home dad just after the Howard era when single income households were more valued and supported even if it was for dubious cultural reasons. My partner had better job security and income and I could supplement our income with work from home. I understand some of the issues women have traditionally faced staying at home. It is socially isolating, probably more so for a bloke, and returning to the workforce can be challenging. It wasn’t a bad option at the time. I would not choose it today as things are a lot harsher now and while I valued my time with the kids for the most part it is a career killer.
It is something I think only people who are very wealthy will be able to do in the future without a UBI or other support. It is hard to view that loss of opportunity as a win for working families. If the primary earner is making more than the median income, a second income should be enhancing wealth for nice things and holidays as it was, not essential to pay the electricity bill and rent as it is now.
yeah the fact that women in the workforce has translated to “Twice as many peasants!” is a fucking bad look for us as a species. dammit capitalism, could you not, just once…
I don’t think like that, I’m only talking in a historical context.
But we were discussing a theoretical future change
Yes that will be expensive.
As with the dog’s breakfast of the US health system, it won’t actually be that expensive if we cut out the middleman and provide public healthcare. A lot of things provide a positive return on investment for society but too many people are still too blinded by bootstrap bullshit and post-war boomer mentality.
I’d rather we make it so people don’t have to work like fucking slaves until they die; it’s absolutely unnecessary
With the cost of living crises combined with the housing shortage I think everyone saw this coming. Some people have full time jobs and live in tents because they cannot get a house. Anyone who is surprised by the baby shortage is most likely rich and never had to experience what the rest of the population goes through.
Especially in Sydney. The trend will soon be people getting high paying jobs in Sydney then working remote from rural so they can put a roof over their head and have a family.
This will have a knock on effect for those rural communities. Property owners will like the high value on their property but those locals trying to get into their local market with their non-Sydney salaries are going to struggle. That’s the can that has been kicked down the road.
The news in the 21st century is irritating. Yes we are aware that fertility rates are low in Australia and other countries, and the reasons are well publicised. Rehashing is unhelpful and not even informative.
What would be more interesting to read is successful strategies implemented by other countries on how to deal with it.
Yep. We aren’t even young but despite our combined income going up by 40% in the last 2 years, we are still having to cut back on everything after having a kid.
With the cost of available childcare at $140 per day, we only get back $20.
So we are basically stuck. So daycare is like $ 18 an hour. If you earn minimum wage or like in aged care you would be fucked. We are super lucky my partner earns a good wage.
We definitely have to cut back on a lot of things to get by lately but unless I’m earning $60+ an hour, childcare isn’t worth it. It’s super not worth it if you have to take them home sick and still pay…
just try to do what I can freelance when the baby sleeps. But like shit…if we just scrapped the stage 3 tax cuts…
Population booms in good times hence the boomers during the post-war economic expansion. No single issue like free child care will change things. Unless we see real wage growth again and better affordability of housing and utilities we won’t see higher birth rates.
It’s not even only for the parents themselves. One of my brothers has a kid and he and my sister-in-law are worrying all the time whether my niece will have a good chance at life at all… And their decision to get 1 child was well planned and they are well off and still they worry a lot. Even considering leaving Germany.
Real wage growth has been stagnant since the late 70’s, while productivity and corporate profits have skyrocketed. If we deal with that I think people might be more inclined to have kids.
Opening the floodgates lets you wring every cent from your existing workforce without threatening future profits. You even get the workforce in now rather than 20 years from now and they’ll pay big when they get here for the privledge of joining
Why would you have a kid knowing they will need to live in a world that will be increasingly inhospitable throughout their lifetime? This is just a basic ethics test - do you care enough about other people, including those yet to be born, to sacrifice your right to have children? The correct answer is pretty obvious.
