| Author |
Topic:
baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
beezel26
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:03am
Subject:
baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
In australia the govt gives a 5k baby bonus for any woman having a kid. Plus you add in the welfare payments and many women are getting pregnant at a young age and make it their job to have kids. Of course who supports the kids, grandma and grandpa cause the parents don't care and the father is probably in prison. But heaven forbid an immigrant needs some sort of money or has his travel paid for by the govt despite the fact of what he gives up to come to the country.
This bonus is antifemine. It treats women as a second class and makes it more worthwhile to get knocked up then to get a decent job and do something with your life. Granted if this was a bonus for educated individuals who make
30k then ok, but to give it to anyone who gets knocked up is just outrageous. Do know how many problems these so called mothers cause for the police depts?
Geez at least in america they are weaning people off of welfare but the idiotic govt wants to keep them on it. Yet everyday they complain aussies aren't that literate or not enough labour to fill the needs of the market.
by the way this happened down the street from me. the four people had twenty one kids in the house.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23915177-2,00.html
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:13am
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
I don't understand. How exactly does this make women "second-class"? 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:20am
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
The problem Western Europe is having, for example, is that 40 years from now the population distribution will look like an ice cream cone/inverted pyramid, with a significant percentage of people at the top in their 70s and 80s who are not so productive economically, and not many young adults coming up the pipeline to take care of them.
Paid maternity leave and flat out per child payments are mechanisms to try to change the population distribution. But by and large they aren't working.
In the U.S., although people talk about the burden of the retiring baby boomers, the problem isn't going to be nearly as bad as in Europe. Why? Immigration. All the illegal immigration has saved our collective asses from an impending demographic disaster. We have plenty of young workers to fund our old age.
This doesn't address the problem that maybe the U.S. does not ideally want to be a nation of 400 million people. 300 million may already be too many in some senses, particularly in the way the population is distributed geographically - too many people in parts of the country (Florida, Southwest, Southern California) where water resources are limited, for example.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/7 11:49am
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
Population crunch doomsayers normally do not take into account the increase in per capita productivity. Between 1970 and 2004, the birth rate in the US dropped about 24%. However, per capita productivity (measured by real GDP per hour worked) increased in the same time frame by 80%.
Yes, our population is aging and there are fewer young people supporting more old people. However, each one of our younger people is able to generate nearly as many goods and services as 2 of their counterparts a generation ago, so it's really not a crisis. To the degree that there is a problem, it's because expectations of standards of living have increased along with our productivity, and in some ways have outpaced that growth, and we have come to expect further increases.
I think we can and should expect people to retire later, because the retirement age was set at 65 at a time when life expectancy was 60 or 61 years old. People live longer now, and are more active for longer, and we need to wean ourselves off the idea of universal retirement at 65. I think we should also increase immigration, and despite people screaming from the ramparts about how immigration will change the culture and cause its collapse, it's worth bearing in mind that the same things were said about previous waves of immigration. The drastic cultural differences between those waves of immigrants and the native-born inhabitants are largely invisible to us now, because the culture we've inherited is a fusion of theirs. The same thing will happen with us, and that's fine.
However, none of these are crises. The demographic winter scenario is a convenient excuse for people to trot out old racism and old patriarchal bullhockey. "Oh n0es! Women are having fewer children later, and that's making them too independent! Immigrants are going to overwhelm us! We need white women to have more babies!" It would be offensive if it weren't so sad.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/7 12:39pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
In the U.S., although people talk about the burden of the retiring baby boomers, the problem isn't going to be nearly as bad as in Europe. Why? Immigration. All the illegal immigration has saved our collective asses from an impending demographic disaster. We have plenty of young workers to fund our old age.
I find it a bit offensive that you seem to equate immigration and illegal immigration, you clearly used the two terms like they were interchangeable: "Why? Immigration. All the illegal immigration..."
From everything that I've read in the last few years, it's actually been the higher birth rate of Latinos (most of them legal U.S. residents) that is to account for the population growth. USA Today even had a front-page story not too long ago, citing higher birth rates (rather than immigration per se).
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/7 1:26pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
You clearly used the two terms like they were interchangeable
Not at all.
Legal immigrants are here as the result of policy choices that promote them coming here and staying here. They make important contributions to our economy.
Illegal immigrants conversely, are here as the result of policy choices that promote them coming here and staying here. They make important contributions to our economy.
If there is a difference, it is that illegal immigrants are overall a larger social, demographic and economic force in the U.S.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/7 1:30pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
- Date Edited:
7/7 1:32pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Here is the post I was referring to:
Jabbadabbado posted:
In the U.S., although people talk about the burden of the retiring baby boomers, the problem isn't going to be nearly as bad as in Europe. Why? Immigration. All the illegal immigration has saved our collective asses from an impending demographic disaster. We have plenty of young workers to fund our old age.
The way that sounds (to me, at least) is that you're talking about immigration and illegal immigration as though they were one and the same. And as I said before, from everything I've read on this subject, I do believe the birth rates are a much bigger factor than anything else.
I mean, I think it's a well-known fact that Europe has also had a problem with illegal immigration. What they do not have, afaik, is the equivalent of the growing population of Latino families in the U.S., with their higher birth rate.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthKomar
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
7/7 2:20pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
|
If they didn't get anything, would you be happy then?
-----signature-----
Lightsabre Blender tutorial. http://boards.theforce.net/fan_films/b10015/28508544/p1/?22 My fan filming website www.FanFilmers.com
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
7/7 2:35pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
My wife and I aren't on welfare. We both have good jobs. We had twins three years ago and received a $7000 baby bonus. It was very helpful and appreciated. The bonus offset some of the actual costs of having babies (obstetrician, hospital, aneathesist) and some of the indirect costs (time off work - going from two incomes to one income).
The government has now introduced means testing which will come into effect next year. My wife and I will no longer qualify for a bonus. We don't really need it but extra money is always helpful - hence the term 'bonus'.
Redneck trash families who neglect their children will neglect their children no matter what. Luckily, such trash accounts for an extreme minority of the Australian population. These people procreate in order to obtain welfare payments. The baby bonus allows them to buy more cigarettes, alcohol and maybe a plasma TV. They are trash.
We need more babies in Australia. Our population is too low. For the most part, the baby 'bonus' is great. I personally think it would be better to funnel that money into paid maternity leave but that's just me.
beezel26 - not everyone who receives the baby bonus is a redneck scumbag. In fact, most people are not. Please do not paint us all with the same brush. Cheers.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dianethx
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
7/7 3:38pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
|
Hoth, in the early 70s, Australia was paying people to move there. My husband, a teacher, and I actually considered moving there but the program stopped before we had made a final decision. Perhaps rather than pay people to have more kids (our world is already overcrowded, imo), perhaps they could do something like that again.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
7/7 4:24pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
If they'd pay me to move there, that would be a seriously tempting offer.
I'd think a large flaw is the concern with some of the groups of immigrants currently coming in, and that might cause some resistance.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dianethx
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
7/7 6:52pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
Well, admittedly, they did have a lot of restrictions. You had to be educated in some field that they needed workers for. At the time, teachers were in demand.
However, I can see that they might not want people that would be a burden to the system. It's a fine balancing act. But paying people to have babies isn't the way. We've too many people now.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:20pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
dianethx posted:
But paying people to have babies isn't the way. We've too many people now.
The problem is that a lot of developed countries face a shrinking population... shrinking faster than they've ever seen.
Here's a NYT article that describes the problem from Europe's point of view; notice that they used adjectives like " drastic" and "alarming" to describe the declining population of some of these nations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:23pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
dianethx posted:
Well, admittedly, they did have a lot of restrictions. You had to be educated in some field that they needed workers for. At the time, teachers were in demand.
However, I can see that they might not want people that would be a burden to the system. It's a fine balancing act. But paying people to have babies isn't the way. We've too many people now.
As Tina said, its an attempt to fix majorly negative growth in a lot of countries, at least of the native populations.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:33pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
I think we still have a skilled migrant scheme, particularly for the mining industry in Western Australia. Otherwise, you'd better have the right visa when you enter the country or we'll send you home or worse lock you in a detention centre for years. We're really good at that.
Our population is only approx 24 million, which is pretty low. We need more people, even if the rest of the world does not. Certainly, the baby bonus was pitched in terms of a being an 'incentive' to have more babies and increase our population. Any time the government throws money at you it is guaranteed to win votes, ie, the real reason. Our former federal Treasuer announced words to the effect of: "Have a baby for Mum, have a baby for Dad and have one for your country" and then on national televsion emplored all Australians to do "their patriotic duty".
I believe the baby bonus will also no longer be paid as a lump sum as from 1 January 2009 but will be paid in fortnightly instalments so it has the character of paid maternity leave. Also, as mentioned above, it will be means tested so if your family's combined income exceeds $150K per annum then you do not qualify because you're "rich".
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:51pm
Subject:
RE: baby bonus is anti feminine, antisocial and just plain wrong from a business standpoint
|
24 million? Where did Australia get and extra 3 or 4 million? I thought it was right around 20 million.
Man I love some of the statements that come out of Australian politics.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
