Why Are People Paying for Childcare While WFH?

SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 16:17
Last edited 22/10/2021 - 20:26

Since most parents rely on childcare subsidies, I guess the question could also be "why are WE (the taxpayer) paying for childcare even though it's not currently needed?"

This has me genuinely curious. Everyone I talk to at work is constantly on about dropping off or picking up their kids from daycare, but I feel too awkward to ask why they're paying for someone to take care of their kids while they're at home everyday anyway. I'm assuming it's because they prefer not to be bothered by their kids while working, which makes sense, but I just don't see why they should still be getting subsidised for that. There are lots of things which would make life easier while WFH but the line has to be drawn between essential public services vs unnecessary luxuries. If parents can't even ship their kids off to school, why are they allowed to unload them onto daycare at the taxpayers's expense?

I'm sure there are some parents who genuinely need daycare while WFH, but let's not pretend that this is the majority.

EDIT - after considering all replies, I have come to appreciate the dire need for daycare centres in this country. Some people really shouldn't be taking care of children.

I would also like to clarify that I do NOT have kids, however this doesn't mean I don't have a right to question where my taxes go. Everyone has a right to propose how their own money should be spent.

Financial

Comments

          • spackbace on 22/10/2021 - 15:35

            @Blitzfx:

            Sounds like it might be time to put him in a home etc where he has access to help when needed, if something does happen to him

            Yup, what's so incorrect about that?

            You mean where the OP later asked about carer options?

            And here

            Aged Residential (Nursing) Home: Basic Daily Fee, RAD, Income & Assets Assessment

            Lol

            I don't think that comment proved your point ;)

            • Blitzfx on 22/10/2021 - 16:19

              @spackbace: They said gramps is about to be discharged. At that specific point in time, the only support they have available is themself. There is no immediate support from the state for their grandpa in that time frame. Did you even read the follow up comments, or the aged care information page?

              There's nothing "incorrect" about your quote, nor is it the part where you are judging them. Typical of you to avoid the main point, just like you avoided the most interesting questions

              • spackbace on 22/10/2021 - 16:50
                -1

                @Blitzfx: Sorry, do you have a point from the last 2 years? Or have you just bookmarked my 2019 comments with some sort of fanboi fascination?

                For someone who doesn't post much, you seem to have an unusual obsession with my 2019 comments. Or were you just obsessing over me that year?

                • Blitzfx on 23/10/2021 - 03:26

                  @spackbace: The date and time are irrelevant in this context. Just conveniently spaced examples of your hypocrisy criticizing someone else of being judgemental when you yourself are one.

    • spiff on 22/10/2021 - 14:52
      +4

      Agreed with your comment until you threw the "cis" in there. The words male and female don't require a prefix.

      • spackbace on 22/10/2021 - 14:53

        I actually don't even use it in everyday language, but felt it was a lil appropriate considering how close-minded OP has been in previous posts

  • SBOB on 21/10/2021 - 16:24
    +5

    Considering the wait lists for childcare, clearly the government has decided that for the period of the lockdown, it's is advantageous to ensure people are still able to utilise child care (whether they meet your level of 'need' due to WFH or not). This would be ensuring that they can return to regular work at the conclusion of the restrictions, without losing their current spot in childcare.

    If they did remove them from childcare and the childcare centres then hired less staff, the same funds would end up just being required for Centrelink anyway due to unemployed child care workers

    • Yawhae on 21/10/2021 - 23:07
      +4

      I'm pretty sure SlavOz is smarter than the entire government. /s

    • AustriaBargain on 22/10/2021 - 14:31

      Childcare should be nationalised like schools anyway.

  • Drakesy on 21/10/2021 - 16:28
    +6

    IMHO If the government became a childcare provider, even after the usual overheads and inefficiencies of government run programs it would still be cheaper than the full subsidy and rorting that's going on.

    It's Kind of like the government paying private schools to look after their kids, while the school charges full rates to the parents highly inefficient and geared towards making big money.

    • Dlw on 21/10/2021 - 16:30
      +2

      There are providers that are community based and are business units of local governments

      • Antikythera on 22/10/2021 - 11:08
        +1

        which are probably there because those particular suburbs are the least profitable so the private centres focus on other areas. socialise the costs privatise the profits.

  • Archi on 21/10/2021 - 16:32
    +16

    whats next
    - paid parental leave? "I don't plan on having kids"
    - smoko breaks ? "I work more because i care about my health and don't smoke"
    - subsidised health care ? "i pay a levy every year but i don't use any medical services because i am healthy"
    - negative gearing ? "people on higher salaries pay less tax than i do"-

      • Drakesy on 21/10/2021 - 16:58
        +33

        Private schools are taxpayer funded…

        • redfox1200 on 21/10/2021 - 20:41
          +13

          They would know this if they had a kid…

        • MessyG on 21/10/2021 - 21:29
          +1

          In fact I'm pretty sure they get more funding than public…

          • Yawhae on 21/10/2021 - 23:09
            +1

            @MessyG: Overall, private schoolsget more funding, but most private schools will get less funding than public of the same size/area.

      • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 17:03

        Going to have give you an F for this one.

        If they'd said something like "well, it has benefits, we should do it.." etc, you could willingly misinterpret what they said as "You are literally saying the government should pay for everything". Then they say "Wait I didn't say that" and then we're off to the races for another troll thread.

        Here they've said "Government policy is about what applies to everyone, not just you". Twist it as much as you like (and I know firsthand how convoluted you can get), but it won't shake out as "And so everything should be free".

        • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 17:08

          Here they've said "Government policy is about what applies to everyone, not just you

          But they didn't apply any actual reason why childcare should be subsidised even though it's gone from an essential service to a luxury. All they said was "it's a government service, therefore like all other government services it makes perfect sense!"

          This isn't true. Government services and subsidies change all the time in lieu of new discussion around how much benefit vs cost they bring in. Simply saying "we need it" isn't an argument, it's it's opinion.

          • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 17:10
            +1

            @SlavOz: Yeah, I'm going to let you get away with defining childcare as a luxury as part of your discussion on why it's so unreasonable for taxes to pay for it.

            Also, that isn't what they said. Imagine trying the same trick twice, while being called on it.

            Any more fallacies you want to get out of your system while I'm paying attention?

            • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 17:58
              -4

              @CrowReally:

              Yeah, I'm going to let you get away with defining childcare as a luxury

              If you don't absolutely need it, and there are alternatives avaliable, that's exactly what a luxury is.

              • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 18:00

                @SlavOz: Yeah, I'm going to let you get away with defining childcare as 'something you absolutely don't need and there are other viable alternatives' as a part of a discussion on why it's so unreasonable for taxes to pay for it.

                For those keeping score, this fallacy is called Begging the Question - assuming the truth of the argument you are trying to argue. ("Given people WFH are able to take care of their kids at the same time as working, childcare is an unreasonable expense".. look at all the heavy lifting that given is doing, folks)

                We're really hitting all the bases tonight, aren't we.

                  • brendanm on 21/10/2021 - 18:16
                    +12

                    @SlavOz:

                    Childcare workers take care of your kids at a ratio of about 1:4. How are you unable to take care of your own kid at a ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 max for most people?

                    I genuinely can't tell if you are being stupid ironically? The work that the childcare workers are doing, is looking after the kids. They aren't looking after the kids, as well as doing a company tax audit.

                    • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 18:40
                      -6

                      @brendanm:

                      The work that the childcare workers are doing, is looking after the kids. They aren't looking after the kids, as well as doing a company tax audit.

                      Childcare workers are looking after kids as well as looking after other kids at the same time.

                      You seem to be suggesting (like many parents) that taking care of kids is akin to a full-time job. If that's the case, I'm still wondering how childcare workers are managing 4 full time jobs since they're taking care of 4 kids each.

                      I would imagine this is only possible because they're consolidating their efforts. Eg, helping each other whenever each team member has a spare moment, making lunch at the same time (or even pre-making lunch so it's ready to be eaten).

                      Parents are certainly capable of doing this too. Everyone WFH stops to make themselves lunch or morning tea - they can make their kids lunch at the same time. Perhaps they can consolidate their lunch break eating while also watching the kids from the dining table.

                  • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 18:23
                    +8

                    @SlavOz: I'm not letting you get away with anything. You've been arguing from a false premise from the get-go and well, we've documented all the twists and turns along the way thus-far.

                    It seems the discussion have now shifted to how easy or difficult daycare is. Well, ok. When you're WFH for your employer, you're required to be working for your employer. You can't take care of your child at the same time as that. They're 2 different things.

                    If you want to handwave and go "yeah, just give them the iPad and cut the crusts off their sandwiches, let's face it, we're all just scrolling through spreadsheets and work doesn't require that much focus", then sure, I'll agree in some circumstances you can do both (let's call it Cushy Job With Bad Parenting possibility). So yeah, if everyone had the same cushy jobs and wanted to skim on actually supervising their child properly, it could happen. That's not reality however, which is where we live.

                    There are parents that want their children to play with other children, socialise, learn skills and so forth. And while they're off doing that, the parent is able to focus 100% on their work and contribute to the economy and pay taxes. The government likes this idea so much, they subsidise it as an incentive.

                    If you don't understand any of that, that's OK. But things you don't understand don't become ludicrous as a result. The fault is not with the system.

                      • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 19:00
                        +8

                        @SlavOz: No, you need to read what I actually said. You've said additional wrong things as part of your response. I can correct those errors as well.

                        So: "then how are daycare workers managing to take care of your kid while also taking care of 3 other kids on the side? If it's not possible to take care of a kid while WFH, it should also be impossible for someone to take care of 4 kids at the same time."

                        Well, they have training in this field. They do things like group activities. "Everyone finger paint". "Okay, time to read a book to everyone". And so on. This is how daycare is possible (can't believe we're descending to whether things that occur are possible or not but moving on..)

                        "If they can do all that while taking care of 4 kids, I'm sure it's possible for 2 parents to take care of their own child (or 2 max) while performing other tasks."

                        Yes, I allowed for this possibility in my response (Cushy Jobs with Bad Parenting possibility). I'm sure you're pleased there's a set of circumstances where parents with kids WFH would be possible for some because you feel it proves your point. it doesn't. 'Possible for some' doesn't mean it's i) suitable for some ii) possible for everyone. Either of those is fatal to your reasoning.

                        "But please note that childcare is not a pre-requisite for a child to grow up and become successful. Yes, it's beneficial and gives them a headstart, but in the end, nothing is nearly as effective as the love and guidance of 2 parents."

                        Some useless truisms in here. Not really sure what you're going for. "Hey, it's possible to grow up successful without childcare". Sure, it's also possible to drive a car every day of your life without a seatbelt and never have an injury. Does that mean seatbelts aren't really required after all? Why would "it's possible that" be a convincing argument? It wouldn't.

                        "nothing is nearly as effective as the love and guidance of 2 parents"

                        Love and guidance of parents disappears when children are at childcare? Does it happen also at school? People who send kids to childcare don't love them as much as those that don't? What a confusing mess.

                          • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 19:16
                            +1

                            @SlavOz: "What's stopping parents from doing this too? If the kids are well-behaved enough go do what a stranger tells them, I'm sure they'd also be willing to do what their parents tell them."

                            Your argument is now "Okay, at childcare kids get read a book at storytime, this is something a parent who is also working from home at the same time can do". Unless those spreadsheets have the three little bears hiding in them, you're wrong.

                            "And just because daycare subsidies while WFH are legitimately essential for some, doesn't mean it's legitimately essential for everyone"

                            Sure. This is a "access to subsidised childcare should be tested/monitored/proven-on-a-case-by-case-basis" argument. Not a "it shouldn't exist" argument. Why are you shifting positions?

                            "childcare is not essential"

                            Yeah, I'm going to let you get away with defining childcare as 'not essential' as a part of a discussion on why it's so unreasonable for taxes to pay for it. (footnote1)
                            Especially as 2 lines above you actually say "just because daycare subsidies while WFH are legitimately essential for some".

                            (footnote1)Damn. That phrase really is getting a work out today, isn't it? Please stop it with that fallacy already.

                            • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 19:29
                              +4

                              @CrowReally: Like I said before, it's OK to not understand this. But it's not a fault of the system that you don't understand how it works.

                              Also, "I've dreamed up a specific set of circumstances where some people wouldn't need X" will never be a suitable argument for "all people shouldn't have X".

                              I don't know why you keep returning to dreamland and conjuring up hypothetical "But this person doesn't need X" as a form of counterpoint. It's irrelevant. "My uncle never wore a seatbelt and never had an injury". Anecdotes at best. Stop it.

                      • HelpMeiCantSee on 22/10/2021 - 09:07

                        @SlavOz: “ nothing is nearly as effective as the love and guidance of 2 parents”

                        So you’re saying because my wife died that I’m not going to be “effective” raising my kids?!?! GTFOH.

          • brendanm on 21/10/2021 - 17:30

            @SlavOz:

            But they didn't apply any actual reason why childcare should be subsidised

            There is likely a net positive to the taxpayer due to the increased amount of tax collected, not just while the kids are in childcare, but also once they go to school, and the caregiver didn't have to lose their career.

      • brendanm on 21/10/2021 - 17:27
        +7

        why not have private school taxpayer funded as well?

        You may want to sit down, because I have some news on this that may shock you…

  • jaybraykay on 21/10/2021 - 16:35
    +11

    If you're trying to make a purely economic argument, and wondering why your tax dollars are paying to look after someone else's kids - you might need to reframe your thinking about childcare slightly - its not necessarily just a subsidy and a taxpayer drain, but also an economic investment.

    If we did see a reduction in the subsidy, this could see a number of people essentially take time off to look after their kids. This could have a flow on effect of a reduced economic output, and higher unemployment. This is at a time when as a national economy, we are trying to avoid all of those things.

    Thats also not considering the administrative overhead to stop, start, pause and message to everyone involved about changes to subsidies for a relatively short term event.

    If you're making the argument parents should be able to look after their own children while working from home - I'd say you are absolutely fooling yourself if you think you can do both well at the same time.

    • funnysht on 21/10/2021 - 22:31

      some people like to see the world burrnn

    • mimik13 on 22/10/2021 - 10:07
      +3

      My thought process before having kids: "How hard is it to look after your own kids?"
      My thought process after having kids: "OMFG it's daycare day!!!! Pop the champagne"

  • CrowReally on 21/10/2021 - 16:40
    +32

    It's SlavOz, people. You might want to check his post history before engaging in some nuanced discussion.

  • freefall101 on 21/10/2021 - 16:42
    +1

    It's easily the majority that need it. Do you think looking after a toddler involves giving them an iPad for 8 hours and telling them to entertain themselves?

    Or are you one of those people who thinks getting 3 hours work done in a day is a successful day and you've got plenty of time for other stuff while you're at home?

    You can't just leave a toddler for a couple of hours to get some work done, even if it's inside your own home.

    • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 16:48
      -8

      I've taken care of kids before. Yeah you have to make lunch, resolve tantrums, check in to make sure they're not burning the place down.

      This is not something necessarily exclusive to parents. WFH is hard on everyone. I've got construction going on right outside my window. Some people live in a shared house bedroom without a desk, they have to sit on their bed hunced over all day working on a tiny screen. Nobody is claiming it's a breeze, clearly this a time where we all need to make sacrifices. Those with a job should be grateful that they haven't been laid off, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they should have to suck it up and take care of their own kids while at home.

      • SF3 on 21/10/2021 - 16:56

        I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they should have to suck it up and take care of their own kids while at home.

        Do you have people reporting into you or employed by you to support this point of view?

        If you have staff members that cannot concentrate or delivery their work due to caring for their child, would YOU suck it up as their employer or manager to do their work for them?

        • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 17:03
          -1

          If you have staff members that cannot concentrate or delivery their work due to caring for their child, would YOU suck it up as their employer or manager to do their work for them?

          Sure, maybe if they agree to come over and make lunch for me because there are no restaurants or vending machines near my house. Why should I have to work AND make lunch at the same time, that's completely unreasonable!

          Or maybe we could fall back on personal responsibility were people are sometimes expected to multi-task and manage their time effectively.

          • timthetoolman on 21/10/2021 - 22:56

            @SlavOz: You're taking the piss surely? Surely?
            I'm so glad you don't have kids

      • freefall101 on 21/10/2021 - 17:20
        +4

        Now I know where all the kids who can’t even read or count before starting school come from.

        Buy some noise cancelling headphones. I won’t even complain about you deducting them on your taxes and me having to pay for you not having double glazed windows.

      • John Kimble on 22/10/2021 - 09:28

        I've taken care of kids before.

        Who's kids? Surely this means they don't know you very well or you were the last resort. Show them this post and see if they continue to let you watch them.

  • KBZ on 21/10/2021 - 16:44
    +31

    Another quality shitpost by slav

  • Tech5 on 21/10/2021 - 16:44
    +16

    Wait, why are we as taxpayers paying for your medical bills again? https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/599881

    Wait, why are we as taxpayers paying for your toll relief? https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/542114

      • treekangagaroo on 21/10/2021 - 17:20
        +2

        So are you saying people working from work is not doing any productive work, and are free to look after their kids ?

        I didn't know travelling to work suddenly makes one productive

        Say you are out getting quotes for a car insurance and the representative on phone put you on hold 10 times to talk to his/her toddler, will you be happy ? Going by what you said he or she should not take any subsidy and keep the child home !!

      • djkelly69 on 21/10/2021 - 17:53
        +5

        They don't have to choose. They can do both.

        Your whole argument is based on this assumption. It may be true for you, it may be true for a number of people. That doesn't make it true for everyone.

      • brendanm on 21/10/2021 - 17:58
        +3

        They don't have to choose. They can do both.

        You are a legitimate goose.

        • Kenb0 on 22/10/2021 - 18:01

          OP is the epitome of "tell me you've not had to take care of toddlers while WFH without telling me".

      • SBOB on 21/10/2021 - 18:00
        +1

        Due to the fact that we're WFH, that's no longer the case for them. They don't have to choose. They can do both.

        why do you assume everyone's job is as simple or as mundane as yours?

      • Tech5 on 21/10/2021 - 18:26
        +14

        How do you think WFH actually works? My friends that have family literally shut their "office" door during work hours and do not come out except at lunch and breaks. That is literally what WFH is- doing your normal job in a different location. They cannot do that job and look after kids at the same time.

        I have friends in a low position such as IT support. Should they tell the caller to wait because their kid is crying? I have friends in managerial positions in the big 4. Should they pause their board meeting to wipe up spilt juice? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

        For someone who's family spent years moving around immigration camps, and lived in housing commissions and tax payer money for 10 years+, you seem to have a very strong opinion on the do's/don'ts of social welfare?

        Disclaimer: I don't have kids, I don't work from home. Just about half my income technically would go to tax. I am happy to pay tax for childcare.

      • bman20 on 22/10/2021 - 10:55

        Childcare subsidies exist because parents shouldn't be forced to choose between caring for their kids and going to work

        Bingo, that's the misunderstanding. You have literally made up a reason as to why we have child care subsidies. The stated purpose, not your opinion, is to help make early learning and education available to families - absolutely nothing about this is changed due to WFH.

      • Antikythera on 22/10/2021 - 11:12

        Childcare subsidies exist because parents shouldn't be forced to choose between caring for their kids and going to work.

        I think you could rephrase that as "Childcare exists to ensure parents can do productive work" and then realise why it still is important.

        • SlavOz on 22/10/2021 - 11:16
          -3

          You do realise kids aren't the only obstacle to doing productive work? Everyone has problems and commitments that could interfere with their work. Why is the government funding your problems but not mine?

  • tio on 21/10/2021 - 16:59
    +1

    Childcare subsidies exist because parents shouldn't be forced to choose between caring for their kids and going to work. Due to the fact that we're WFH, that's no longer the case for them. They don't have to choose. They can do both.

    oh really? parent of the year and employee of the month material right there.

  • ily on 21/10/2021 - 17:17
    +1

    you can't work around kids unless you actively ignore them.

  • brendanm on 21/10/2021 - 17:20
    +10

    Haha I can tell you don't have young kids, no way you're getting any work done with them around.

    • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 17:54
      -6

      By thus logic you probably never go on holidays or do anything for fun.

      How can you with kids to take care of?

      • brendanm on 21/10/2021 - 17:59
        +13

        I'm not sure how it is where you work, but where I am, I actually have tasks to complete. Looking after kids stops you from completing these tasks. On holiday you don't have tasks to complete, literally the entire thing is taking care of the kids. Taking care of kids sure can be fun, but if you are doing it, you aren't working.

        • spackbace on 21/10/2021 - 20:24
          +28

          Shhh, common-sense isn't allowed around OP's shitposts

      • SF3 on 21/10/2021 - 21:49
        +2

        You should live life more and gain life experiences, rather than over thinking from observations, hearsay, anecdotal evidence, etc…

        The world is significantly more diverse than what you think. Not everyone is like you or the people you hang out with in real life.

      • Yonaton on 22/10/2021 - 11:07

        Yes OP because most people fit in your little narrow sphere of lifestyle of choices. We are lucky that Australia has a relative high social/health/welfare program to cater for different families with different needs, if childcare was less accessible more people would not be returning to work especially during this time, most of whom will be women who are already impacted by wage/super disparities during their lives. Higher workforce participation benefits everyone, so stop your whinging and open up your mind a little.

  • dogboy on 21/10/2021 - 17:24
    +4

    This has to be a troll post

    • mskram on 22/10/2021 - 08:44

      I used to think that with earlier SlavOz posts but as time goes on I'm starting to think they genuinely feel what they are expressing.

  • tsunamisurfer on 21/10/2021 - 17:30

    When the lockdowns first happened and it was closed schools and forced WFH.

    I have 2 young kids and it was not conducive to work at all.

    They scream, fight, cry, barge into the room, even if you get a moment's respite, the threat of a war breaking out can happen any time.

    • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 18:00
      -3

      If childcare workers can take care of kids with a ratio that massively outnumbers them, how do you possibly justify saying you cant take care of 1 or 2 of your own kids?

      • tio on 21/10/2021 - 18:13

        because X number of trained childcare workers can take care of X + Y number of kids, you concluded that it's ok for 2 parents to be able to take care of their own kids while concurrently performing a full time job?

      • tsunamisurfer on 21/10/2021 - 18:17

        If childcare workers can take care of kids with a ratio that massively outnumbers them, how do you possibly justify saying you cant take care of 1 or 2 of your own kids?

        Of course you are right.

        I am a horrible parent.

        • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 18:29
          -3

          Man that's harsh, don't say that. I certainly wouldn't go there. I believe most parents are doing the best they know how to do.

          People might think that it's impossible to take care of kids while working from home, but all they need is to be shown that it certainly is possible. If daycare centres can do it at an adults-kids ratio of 1:4, most households can do it with an adult-kids ratio of 2:1 or 2:2.

      • freefall101 on 21/10/2021 - 18:45
        +1

        And why can't a taxi driver complete 20 trips in the time a bus driver takes to do one? The bus driver is massively outnumbered by passengers!

        It scales. You can keep an eye on multiple children at once. You can give them the same writing exercise to do and help the ones that get stuck. You can give one set of instructions once and all the children do it instead of telling them all to do it individually. A bus can deliver multiple people at once.

        If you give 1 child something to do that takes an hour and they ask for help when they get stuck, you're going to get interrupted 10 times in that hour and help them for a few seconds each time. That means you get basically no work done, can't be on a call, can't focus, despite it only being one kid. You can't tell them to save all their issues for a 10 minute period that you've scheduled for them.

        • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 18:55
          -6

          It scales. You can keep an eye on multiple children at once. You can give them the same writing exercise to do and help the ones that get stuck. You can give one set of instructions once and all the children do it instead of telling them all to do it individually

          Congratulations. You just learned the trick to taking care of kids while WFH.

          As I mentioned in another post, parents can scale too. The busiest ones often do. Make their lunch ahead of time. Combine your lunch break where you would usually be scrolling through Facebook by watching them while you eat. Get your partner to help out if you're on a meeting that can't be interrupted. Maybe you can brush their hair while reading a long email or report. Every time you get up or decide to go for a quick walk down the street and back, take them with you.

          It's almost like humans can do multiple things at once and not every responsibility requires 100% uninterrupted focus.

          • freefall101 on 21/10/2021 - 19:03
            +1

            @SlavOz: That is not how scaling works. All you're doing is splitting the work between two people, which doesn't decrease the amount of work at all and it means each parent can easily do half a days work.

            And I guess single parents can just get screwed over, like they do in everything else in life? Being a single parent with a job is hard enough as it is even with childcare and you want to take that away from them.

            How much time do you spend in your work day going for quick walks down the street? If I was your boss I'd be asking why you're not working and instead faffing around all day. You've obviously never worked in a call centre, where you can't just take breaks out of your work whenever to look after a kid, nor had a meeting that lasts more than an hour, nor had a job where you actually need to work all day.

            It sounds like you can't imagine a world that's not your perspective.

            • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 20:12
              -1

              @freefall101:

              And I guess single parents can just get screwed over, like they do in everything else in life?

              Nah, I sympathise with them, I wouldn't take childcare away. But don't piggyback off their struggles by insisting that every other parent needs childcare too.

              How much time do you spend in your work day going for quick walks down the street? If I was your boss I'd be asking why you're not working and instead faffing around all day

              Thinking is working. I work in a complex job where each brief requires me to come up with a unique solution every time. I don't have to be at my screen to do that. Some of my best ideas and solutions come after a long walk.

              If I was in the office, this process often looks like staring out the window.

      • cashews on 22/10/2021 - 11:21
        +3

        This is one of the dumbest things I've read all week, and that is saying something.

  • dasher86 on 21/10/2021 - 18:21
    +9

    Nice troll post.

    • verio on 21/10/2021 - 18:25
      +7

      It not his first one.

    • onetwothreefour on 21/10/2021 - 19:30
      +5

      I admire the way he keeps the trolling going by repeating the same incorrect ideas over and over again even though they're wrong.

      • SF3 on 21/10/2021 - 21:20

        Same logical fallacies with different personas.

        This is indeed a doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. - Definition of insanity

    • TEER3X on 21/10/2021 - 21:12
      +8

      The worst thing is he doesn't even know he's trolling.

      Australia is definitely the land of opportunity though, OP is living proof that even clueless individuals can make it in this country.

      OP you are a testament to the saying that Australia is the Lucky Country.

      • SF3 on 21/10/2021 - 21:19

        Australia is the Lucky Country.

        Not sure, it is Lucky for Australia tbh.

  • deeeno on 21/10/2021 - 19:49
    +21

    As a parent, today I have found out that I can only hand out 5 negative votes in 24 hours.

    Those 5 negative votes should only count as one since I'm only handing them out to one person!

    • Greem85 on 21/10/2021 - 21:22

      It is funny how these ~28-30yr olds with strong opinions about things they have not experienced yet in life can ruffle one's feathers, eh? :)

    • SF3 on 23/10/2021 - 18:07

      I’m sure you are not alone, considering the number of -votes issued to OP’s comments.

  • apple2016 on 21/10/2021 - 20:45
    +2

    It’s working from home OP. Not working for home!

  • Brucegonemad on 21/10/2021 - 20:55
    +1

    If you are asking this question you definitely don't have kids. Maybe you have a pet dog?

    Imagine your pet dog barking non stop and having to be minded around the clock because they might eat anything and everything which might mean an expensive trip to the vet or even worse…now imagine trying to focus to get work done or being in an online face to face conference.

    For me, (and I think most adults, heck even most teenagers) I could understand just with a few minutes of thought why it's very difficult to mind children whilst working from home…unless of course your job doesn't entail much actual 'work'…

    • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 21:03
      -7

      Yes I do have a dog. A very old and sick one actually, and a large pet bird as well.

      I know what screaming and tantrums sound like. I know what it means to watch creatures with the mind of a 2 year old. I know what it's like having to feed, wash, entertain, and care for animals that rely on me.

      I also do all of the above while living alone and WFH, as well as finding enough time in my day to exercise and see friends.

      Frankly, I'm tired of parents playing the "you don't know what it's like" card and pretending that they're the only ones with responsibilities and commitments.

      • SBOB on 21/10/2021 - 21:07
        +9

        You're comparing and saying owning and caring for a dog is equivalent to looking after and raising a child?
        That's the summary you're going for…

        The trolly-ness just keeps getting stronger..

        • Greem85 on 21/10/2021 - 21:21
          +1

          It's not troll-ness. Just a terrible tone-deafness coupled with assumption that the same flawed argument repeated over and over, will eventually win him a discussion.

        • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 23:36
          -2

          You're comparing and saying owning and caring for a dog is equivalent to looking after and raising a child?

          I would urge you to have this discussion among a group of dog lovers/pet enthusiasts (even ones with children) and see how much sympathy you get.

          Perhaps most people aren't as emotionally attached to their dogs as they are to their children, but the care and monitoring required is certainly on par. The only reason it might seem easier to care for dogs is because it's socially acceptable to leave your dog tied up and alone all day, even though it's extremely unhealthy for them. If you locked your kid in a cage all day, of course it would be easy as well.

          • BartholemewH on 22/10/2021 - 02:16

            @SlavOz: Kids aren't equivalent to pets in any way. Keep telling yourself they are though.

          • SBOB on 22/10/2021 - 07:13

            @SlavOz:

            I would urge you to have this discussion among a group of dog lovers/pet enthusiasts

            You do know that there are people out there with both children and dogs right?
            Maybe those people would be great to ask and see whether your equivalency is accurate.

            As one, it's not.
            How tiny and insulated is your view of the world?

            Trolling level = Trolling level +1

            • AEKaBeer on 22/10/2021 - 09:00

              @SBOB: Yep small kids are so much harder, the pets settle down pretty quickly and can fend for themselves 95% of the time and tend not to try jump from dangerous heights or get into laundry cupboards full of toxic chemicals while needing constant attention. The dog and the cat have both passed away, the rabbit's the last man standing but he'll be the last pet we have for at least another 5 years.

  • Greem85 on 21/10/2021 - 21:18
    +12

    Work From Home assumes you can work. Having a toddler around means you will not be able to work for more than 5 minutes without having to resolve a tantrum, feed him or take care of the fact he gets bored faster that a young Beagle (dog reference for OP, since apparently dogs and kids are the same thing care-wise).

    I remember being 30yrs old, thinking I knew everything about kids because someone in the family had them. Then I have had my own, and no, I did not understand jack#@$%.

    I am waiting for OP to bring up the fact he held a child once, so he can now determine how disruptive they can be.
    By the way, a good topic for the next troll post: Public healthcare system - is it a waste of my tax money? Everyone I know is a young adult with corpo job and a private health fund?

    • SlavOz on 21/10/2021 - 23:39
      -4

      There are no alternatives to healthcare, and if people don't get it they'll die.

      Please don't compare that to parents wanting a taxpayer funded holiday from their kids every day.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join