RumpledElf

Childcare getting more expensive

64 posts in this topic

The younger generation sees in clear writing the entire social system is bound to destruct just as when us want to make use of its benefits. Why shouldn't we tell the baby boomers to reign it in to make sure the younger ones get to see some benefits too. Why should we pay in and never get to reap any rewards because the people before us were greedy?

Everybody now knows defined benefit retirement schemes are unsustainable. Why shouldn't the law terminate them without compensation instead of letting some people drain funds from schemes that need to be kept alive by others who will never see those generous benefits?

What self serving bullsh*t. I know sir/ma'am you've served your country (or employer) diligently and astutely since the 60s and are enjoying your life however some can't-cut-it, want-it-now younger types want you to be a pauper. Is that OK?

No one has Defined Benefit schemes anymore to new hires, probably not for the last decade if not more (I'm not on one, I'm just a run of the mill super scheme and I opted out of military defined benefit around 1987). Defence ditched them over 20 years ago. to new hires.

Put in the yards, save and invest wisely, don't borrow for consumption and stop whining. Whinging is not making it happen.

Tor is an example whose 'making it' happen and is probably early x or late y and doesn't whine like a jet engine built in 1965.

Why should we pay in and never get to reap any rewards because the people before us were greedy?

Pay into what? My older aquaintances aren't greedy. You are. You want it now. Guess what? It ain't happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the whole point. Defined benefit schemes shouldn't have been quit for new hires. They should have been quit for everybody even the people who had already signed up. Collecting aged pension while living off equity in a million dollar property is another way how the old screw the young.

You can argue all you want that me living off $12,000 per year is greedy but the facts in tax law speak for themselves. The old are greedy, have lived off borrowed money and now continue to live off the hard work from the generations after them in their retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the whole point. Defined benefit schemes shouldn't have been quit for new hires. They should have been quit for everybody even the people who had already signed up. Collecting aged pension while living off equity in a million dollar property is another way how the old screw the young.

You can argue all you want that me living off $12,000 per year is greedy but the facts in tax law speak for themselves. The old are greedy, have lived off borrowed money and now continue to live off the hard work from the generations after them in their retirement.

You argue a slippery slope. Your point is, if I may paraphrase, that the older generation took advantage of the younger generation and should have the rug pulled out from under them right?

Yet you are in the top 10% of the worlds lifestyles.

So by your logic any brickie in pakistan should be complaining that you have all the stuff you have by taking advantage of him.

As soon as someone's argument boils down to "people better off than me are ripping me off and people worse off than me can go to hell" it is obviously a selfish argument. Which is fine, my argument is selfish too. I want stuff, it'll come at someone's expense. But when you claim you are in the magic threshold where you got ripped and didn't rip anyone else off people tend to think you are a tool.

Also they realise you are self absorbed and can't figure out how to get what you want, that makes you a target. You are rich and not paying attention, a fast moving predator will hit you and take it all before you realise. Then you'll complain some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the whole point. Defined benefit schemes shouldn't have been quit for new hires. They should have been quit for everybody even the people who had already signed up. Collecting aged pension while living off equity in a million dollar property is another way how the old screw the young.

You can argue all you want that me living off $12,000 per year is greedy but the facts in tax law speak for themselves. The old are greedy, have lived off borrowed money and now continue to live off the hard work from the generations after them in their retirement.

Defined Benefit Schemes aren't depriving you. YOU ARE depriving yourself. They are a drop in the ocean.

They were a benefit for long service and mostly government employees. Super didn't take off until Keating/Hawke so most of those having a good time are self made. As I will be, as Tor will be.

Living on 12,000 a year? Change careers.

My employer puts 12% into my super. Military can put up to 20%+ into the troop's super if they serve long enough (increases with service as an incentive to retain).

Advanced societies value and cherish their elders not steal from them because their younger generation are too fecking useless to do the hard yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My employer puts 12% into my super. Military can put up to 20%+ into the troop's super if they serve long enough (increases with service as an incentive to retain).

I'd say those that are most screwed are the ones pre-super that don't have cushy pension funds. IE, most of the boomers. Which is why there is this big looming problem coming up - the young are going to retire with plenty of money that was force put aside for their old age, but most of the boomers have only super from the last few years they were working, which isn't going to see them very far. Its not like all the boomers are going to retire with $70k a year - far from it, those ones are the lucky minority. The rest get that $12k a year, which all the working genX, Y and later Z get to pay for.

The average super, like the median income, is really really low. Less than $50k I think, but I read that some time ago. A lot of dismally low super balances pull the average down something severe. Someone saw this coming and invented super, bit late though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the childcare issue... Yes it's getting more expensive but I don't begrudge it. I'm happy for the gov't to help out on the 18k per year bill. Yet I believe it is worth every penny. Child care workers are possibly worth more (gasp) esp for high quality care with educated early childhood professionals. I challenge any high paid executive to to the job. I only had one kid because there was no way I was trained (nor wanted) to be a stay at home mum. Lets face it many women have been trained to bake and make play doh at home with kids from a tender age. Good for them. Sounds like a crusie job with little brain power needed in those tender first years. Lets face it you don't need a degree (although many should get one). I did it for a year and was glad to do it but soooo happy to get that brain working again. Lets face it stay at home parents are not rocket scientists (although many carry on like they are). The human race has been pumping out kids at an exponential rate with millions of SAHM's at the helm. The job is pretty basic and has been repeated billions upon billions of times. It surely hasn't improved humanity! Has it? Yes patience and emotional fortitude is an essential criteria for the job. I believe in choice. Women or men should have the opportunity to make organic mush and go to play group if they want but frankly it takes a community to raise a child not just a parent. I don't think am disadvantaging my child by putting him into an enviornment that caters to his needs and that is run by highly professional people. At least they have a licence to be around children. In fact I believe I have given him an advantage about life and being independent and respecting others . This has been a tradition in my family- My grandmother worked as a teacher, my mother a dentist and I. We all had childcare in one form or another. 3 generations of children grown to be highly productive members of society and still manage to breed. I have a theory- bad parents are bad for children as is bad childcare. Good parents are good for children and so is good childcare. Simple. If one can afford the care that is good its worth every penny. F'''k the house. I rather go to work and provide good care via childcare as well as a satisfying my identity apart from being mother. They arn't mutally exculsive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only had one kid because there was no way I was trained (nor wanted) to be a stay at home mum. Lets face it many women have been trained to bake and make play doh at home with kids from a tender age. Good for them. Sounds like a crusie job with little brain power needed in those tender first years. Lets face it you don't need a degree (although many should get one). I did it for a year and was glad to do it but soooo happy to get that brain working again.

I got immensely bored during maternity leave with my first and was really glad to get back to work. Unfortunately where I worked decided that parttimers get the crap jobs that would normally be foisted onto work experience students and I ended up bored at work again pretty soon after managing to weasel my way back into my old department ... I quit, did another degree and then wandered off outback to do my own thing that is taking an annoyingly long time to pay back but keeps me very much occupied and happy, more than I could say for my old job. The last year or so we've put the big project on the backburner and are currently attempting to get enough passive income to live off plus a good lump sum of cash to pay for all the software we need so we can work on the main project without having to worry about where the next meal comes from - can't rely on Centerlink, they cannot comprehend projects that have long development times with zero payback until they are complete. Working self-employed for zero pay actually disqualifies you from being able to get any government payments at all, which is a real kick in the teeth considering you can just declare you are a drug addict and they'll pay you without any obligation to do anything at all. Software takes time to develop, period. You don't make money the day you start the requirements docs. The industry average is something ridiculous like 5 years to completion these days, with much larger teams and budgets than ours. Oh well, we'll get there.

Little kids are fun, as I've finally discovered with a second child. First drove me nuts how she'd never engage in anything, never mimics, is extremely difficult to deal with, gives up extremely easily and can at times really not be fun to be around, but my second is literally the polar opposite - engages in everything, copies us, tries to help all the time. I reckon it won't be long before we'll be able to set her up on a computer and get her doing some of the coding :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's horses for courses. Isn't it? Every time one has a child its a lucky dip of life...you never know what you'll get.

I was thinking about this Stay At Home Mum thing. And it occured to me that it was a quite recent invention. From what I can gather, historically speaking mothers have always worked. Staying at home wasn't an option until the industiral revolution. The difference is the extended family isn't there to rely on. Particulalry grandparents and lots of siblings. The lack of community is the real difference and weakness within our individulaist/consumerist society. Prob the real thing that's hurting the next generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just had a thought about childcare centres, so feel free to shoot it down, rather than going to the expense of setting up centres as stand alone facilities, why don't they incorporate them into existing primary schools, the govt already owns the real estate, and could build the facilities and lease them out to private providers, which would hopefully reduce some of the overheads and make it a bit cheaper for the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just had a thought about childcare centres, so feel free to shoot it down, rather than going to the expense of setting up centres as stand alone facilities, why don't they incorporate them into existing primary schools, the govt already owns the real estate, and could build the facilities and lease them out to private providers, which would hopefully reduce some of the overheads and make it a bit cheaper for the parents.

Why not incorporate them into companies so they are close to the parents?

Easier and has precedent if I am not mistaken, cost about the same. Save a bunch in travel and phone calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the ABC definitely has one at their Ultimo site, and I'm sure I've heard one somewhere else in the CBD when walking past, so more of them would be good for a lot of parents if they could bring the child to work with them. I thought having them at primary schools would offer a similar benefit if they already had another child attending.

I wonder if there are planning and approval issues with setting up centres in workplaces that have prevented or inhibited more of this taking place? Our planning laws do seem to discourage mixed use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just had a thought about childcare centres, so feel free to shoot it down, rather than going to the expense of setting up centres as stand alone facilities, why don't they incorporate them into existing primary schools, the govt already owns the real estate, and could build the facilities and lease them out to private providers, which would hopefully reduce some of the overheads and make it a bit cheaper for the parents.

Funny you should say that, the biggest school here just has approval to do that - the population boom has rendered the existing childcare center far too small.

They're closing the school and reopening it (its a legislation thing) as a birth-yr 12 school, and doing all sorts of demolishing and rebuilding and rearranging of buildings.

Where I used to work had vacation care for school age children but nothing for preschoolers. They had it in a building just outside the main security gate. But they had hardly any women working there so there wasn't much demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has Defined Benefit schemes anymore to new hires, probably not for the last decade if not more (I'm not on one, I'm just a run of the mill super scheme and I opted out of military defined benefit around 1987). Defence ditched them over 20 years ago. to new hires.

The federal politicians were last to lose them as far as I know and they voted them out, but of course only for new politicians first entering the fray, those voting all preserved their own...

I reckon they should index them back a bit, only because teachers, soldiers, govt employees even politicians, earnt less when the pensions were on the table for currently serving members, compared to other parts of society (leave merchant bankers out of this). Now they have taken the defined benifits pensions away from new starters, of course the salaries are going up for teachers, soldiers, govt employees, hence old mate on a 70% defined benifit sees his pension increase relative to other pensioners on defined contribution schemes because defined benifit pensions have been stopped now.

You could indeed look at the government removing defined benifits in the future as feathering their own nest. They are already crying poor and how will they get new politicians now its been taken away, no prizes for gusessing it will invlove higher remuneration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just had a thought about childcare centres, so feel free to shoot it down, rather than going to the expense of setting up centres as stand alone facilities, why don't they incorporate them into existing primary schools, the govt already owns the real estate, and could build the facilities and lease them out to private providers, which would hopefully reduce some of the overheads and make it a bit cheaper for the parents.

Plush private schools already often have them. WA has school startign for 4yo's as an option for most state schools, for 2 days fulltime or 4 days halfdays. WA also has 5yo school as optional only for some odd reason???

The private schools for littlies cost about the same as long day care fulltime and I considered it as a real option when I was in Melbourne, but I feared once you see the quality of education your kid is getting as a 3 or 2 year old you might lock yourself into it for life! Certainly a 40k per annum expense would set me back, speaking of debt slaves.

This is a stateline transcript from 2005 about them in Adelaide:

Transcript

Concern about private schools moving into preschool

Broadcast: 15/04/2005

Reporter: Paul McCarthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now