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.
Population booms in good times hence the boomers during the post-war economic expansion. It isn’t a Children of Men scenario. Parenting is one of if not the biggest economic decision people face in their lives.
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 is a huge sacrifice for many people and turns very stressful in a bad economy.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.I’d rather we make it so people don’t have to work like fucking slaves until they die; it’s absolutely unnecessary
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.
Edit: Do you downvoters care to explain why the disagree with education for children?
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?
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
Any attempt to legislate that change is not going to work.
taxation works, all we need do is enforce it.
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.
