Should Maternity Leave Be Paid for 12 Months?

Trying2SaveABuck on 29/08/2022 - 16:55
Last edited 29/08/2022 - 17:23 by 2 other users

Now I'm not a 'believer in a Gender pay gap but I do believe there is a life time 'earnings gap' between the two sexes which probably could be 'better' managed in Australia.

A recent article - The message is clear, women are not part of Australia’s fair go

Does talk about the 'gap' widening from what I have 'read' from the actual research not journalist sensationalism is women generally do get paid mostly the 'same' as men per-hour (for same work) however they tend to 'work less hours' though out there working life (despite living longer then their male counter parts) and one of the big issues is women take 12 or so months off for maternity leave for every child they have (note: some take more then 12 some take less but the average is about 12 months)

The other bits of research I've read in the past is there is a gap because men more likely to take a heighten risk to create wealth i.e. start a business, invest in stocks etc (however interestingly women who invest on average do better then men from a returns POV) - but I don't think there is much society can do about that so to focus on the matter at hand….

With that said from a balanced perspective I actually think there is a reasonable argument women should not be 'dis-advantaged' for having children especially in countries like Australia that have a relatively low birth rate. The system should be encouraging women to have a solid career but also not harm them financially if they choose to have children. If anything it should be 'encouraged' from a social and financial perspective.

This is probably the most 'socialist' thing you will read me type, but I think there is a fair argument women should be fair at least 12 months full pay maternity leave with super and all…(this should be paid by the government not the employer to stop discrimination at the hiring point) - Certain workplaces might want to give additional benefits but I think the minimum time for full pay should be 12 months or at least 12 months at minimum wage.

What does the OzBargain community think?

Full: Disclosure my wife and I have two kids do not intend to have anymore i have no 'dog in this fight'

Poll Options

  • 192
    Maternity leave is fine the way it is
  • 466
    Maternity should be paid for at least 12-month
  • 97
    There shouldn't be any Maternity leave
Education & Work Maternity Leave

Related Stores

Services Australia
Services Australia

Comments

  • randomusername2017 on 29/08/2022 - 17:02
    -1

    Yes.
    Only for professions that are not underpaid though.

    • dust on 29/08/2022 - 17:26

      Which professions are not underpaid?

    • HeWhoKnows on 30/08/2022 - 08:20
      +9

      Why should employers be responsible when women get pregnant ?
      It has nothing to do with work.

      I say limit it to 4 weeks once every 5 years.
      Intending parents can just build up holiday leave if they plan to have kids and take time off.

      • Jolakot on 30/08/2022 - 12:00
        -4

        Why should employers be responsible when an employee gets sick? Or has a family member pass away?

        The cost of having an employee includes dealing with their (reasonable) life decisions, if you don't want to deal with it then pay contractor rates

        • unhuman on 30/08/2022 - 12:13
          +33

          Getting pregnant is usually life decisions.
          Getting sick or someone dying isn’t. Can’t compare apples with a onion.
          We have awesome maternity leave in Australia and anyone complaining should save some more annual leave.
          Stop trying to change stuffs that works flawlessly and think of a way to control increases in inflation, house prices , pay rises , everyday goods , hunger , animal rights etc.

          • Jolakot on 30/08/2022 - 13:40
            +13

            @unhuman: We don't have "awesome maternity leave", we have some of the worst in the developed world. Of the wealthy countries that offer parental leave (i.e. not the USA), we are tied for last: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/raw/p07d6mmh.png

            I agree with you though, we should stop trying to change stuff that works flawlessly. But parental leave doesn't work flawlessly, given that all of our peers have left us in the dust in that regard, so it should be fixed

            Because while we should think of ways to make society better, if you get bogged down in complex problems like inflation or house prices then you're going to get nothing done. Have to start with the easy low hanging fruit first

            • gromit on 30/08/2022 - 14:25
              +14

              @Jolakot: not sure how accurate that chart is. The benefits listed there seemed extremely generous so I looked up 2 countries at random and neither match the graph. The top one estonia has 90 weeks listed??? quick google shows in actuality it is 140 days (28 weeks), Germany is listed as about 45 weeks, google shows 14 weeks. Australia is 18 weeks but the chart shows about 8? maybe missing some critical context in the numbers on it?

              • Jolakot on 31/08/2022 - 10:53
                +1

                @gromit: The chart is correct, if you look at the legend you'll see that it's measured as "full-pay equivilant", to accurately compare different systems

                Estonians get 140 days of maternal leave, as well as 435 days of parental leave which can be split between the mother and father. Germans get up to 3 years parental leave after those 12 weeks, but at a lower rate paid for by the government

                Australians get all 18 weeks at a lower rate, so we're adjusted to 12 weeks as it's the equivilant of 12 weeks full-pay

                • gromit on 31/08/2022 - 11:08
                  +1

                  @Jolakot: most Australians don't get at a lower rate at all, We simply have a baseline legislated rate. for instance I get full pay for 18 weeks. it isn't adjusted to 12 weeks, the chart clearly has us below 10 weeks, looks like 8.

                  • SgtBatten on 01/09/2022 - 01:00
                    +1

                    @gromit: Maternity leave is minimum wage though so not sure how you can say most don't get reduced pay.

                    I couldn't afford to take my paternity leave for the same reason, instead I used annual leave at full pay.

                  • Jolakot on 01/09/2022 - 11:46

                    @gromit: Full-pay is typically based on average income before tax (or median depending on what's being measured)

                    So the baseline legislated rate of ~42k/year is a huge step down from the average income of ~91k/year, which is 46% of full-pay and thus 46% of 18 weeks is 8.3 weeks, rounded to 8 weeks

                    Same with New Zealand, who caps parental leave at ~$34k/year, while the median is ~97k/year, so despite having 24 weeks they are only given 35% of that at 8.4 weeks, also rounded to 8.

                    I'm not a fan of how they've clearly rounded to full weeks instead of full days, but it isn't exactly a photo-finish either when we're still tied for last place

            • unhuman on 30/08/2022 - 16:14
              -1

              @Jolakot: I do not think parental leave takes precedence over wage growth, inflation, climate change etc. apologies but it is not low hanging fruit in my opinion. Do you wanna bring a child in this world when you can’t provide for them but happy with 12 months parental leave or do you prefer everyone can give adequate lifestyle to their children with higher wage growth?

              • redfox1200 on 31/08/2022 - 08:37

                @unhuman: higher wage growth is not going to solve the problem. the average person will still spend all their money and not be able to afford anything. you actually have to earn above average income to get ahead.

          • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 09:59

            @unhuman: We need quite a bit of change in our budget to fund hundreds of billions for US/UK nuclear submarines. Those are priority over maternity leave or universal free healthcare.

      • coffeeinmyveins on 30/08/2022 - 13:31
        +8

        It has nothing to do with work.

        Neither does going on a holiday. Where do you draw the line? We're human, not robots.

        Intending parents can just build up holiday leave if they plan to have kids and take time off.

        Except it doesn't work like that. Most businesses will force you to take leave after it accrues. you're also saying that would be parents can't have any vacations at all?

        • unhuman on 30/08/2022 - 18:29
          -2

          Employers can’t legally force you to take leave. They might ask you but it’s your choice to accept it or not.

          • Miss B on 30/08/2022 - 18:54
            +3

            @unhuman:

            https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/annual-leave/directing-an-…

            They can to an extent. I guess you could keep turning up, but your leave balance would still be depleted.

          • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 30/08/2022 - 19:16
            +1

            @unhuman: This is not correct. After a certain balance, as per the company policy, you may be required to reduce the leave balance.

            • unhuman on 30/08/2022 - 20:43

              @darkmattersunB6c0MV: That’s after you accumulate too much. There’s something called work life balance. But employers can’t force you to take annual leave. If you can accumulate 60 days of annual leave in 3 years, I guess , you can use it for paternity leave. My comment was about 1 year. There’s some forced leave during Christmas.

              • Harold Halfprice on 30/08/2022 - 22:48

                @unhuman: They could force you to take annual leave during covid.

              • xavster on 31/08/2022 - 00:04

                @unhuman: Check your award, employers can direct employees to take leave if it exceeds a certain amount of days, usually around 30 days or 35 days.

                i.e. if your annual leave exceeds 35 days, you may be directed to reduce your leave balance as soon as practicable.

                Employers can also direct employees to take leave during shut down periods. i.e. Christmas period or new years etc.

                Again, check your award, EBA etc.

        • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 30/08/2022 - 19:20

          There is no holiday leave, is it?
          Or does your employer give you holiday leave, and a package?

          I think everyone should get their basket of leaves, and you should be allowed to use it however you like.
          If you have used up your balance, then it is LWP.
          Unfortunately, this would not work for Australia.

      • suchan on 30/08/2022 - 14:35

        Intending parents can just build up holiday leave if they plan to have kids and take time off.

        I can see where you're coming from but with most companies having a policy (in some form or another) that employees are not allowed to accumulate more than x weeks of leave that this is not feasible.

        That said, this assumes that one stays long enough to accumulate enough leave. Most people I know these days stay no longer than 2 - 3 years with one place.

      • Chong on 31/08/2022 - 10:11
        +1

        very short sighted, as a country the thing that will kill you is increasing proportion of older people… remember working people carry the biggest burden for tax, both income tax, payroll tax, and having a workforce for the companies that make money. with a dwindling workforce govt would have to increase GST to make up for the tax shortfall, or open the doors wide open for migration.

        Childcare should be state paid for professions that are critical and underpaid, if one of the parents is a nurse, paramedics, teachers, work in a school, logistics drivers. Between the ATO and Centrelink can manage the fine detail of that, like how to support single parent homes more.

        As a national policy it makes sense, increase birth rate while keeping parents in the workforce.

      • t_c on 31/08/2022 - 15:26

        AFAIK employers are not responsible, government pays it. no?

      • MrFrugalSpend on 31/08/2022 - 18:01
        +5

        Main issue here - paid by who?

        It's not fair for all manner of small businesses to fund such a generous gesture. Especially when these days most young people only stay in jobs 2-3 years - there is no guarantee they will see any productive value from them. A business can't sustain paying someone to not work for them, with no guarantee they ever will again (or at least not enough to make up for it), plus pay someone to do the work that needs to be done temp in their absence. That would cripple a lot of small businesses.

        If this was a thing, it would need to be government funded… and that already exists, its called the welfare system (if you qualify) - we just make sure that is sufficiently overhauled and run it through the employer to keep the connection to them (but without coming from their funds).

        Additionally, if this was imposed on employers the pay gap / women's unemployment will only increase because people won't risk hiring women of child bearing age. …. Now you will tell me they will make it illegal to discriminate… but some people will find ways to assess similar candidates to get the outcome they want/need and avoid the expense.

        As for discrimination, why shouldn't it be parental leave (not maternity)? Why can't I stay home and my professional wife go to work?!
        Let's be fair to encourage her to earn more - i'd be happy if she did and I stayed home with the kids… which comes to my next point, its often her choice to do that. Husbands are off being well paid tradies etc and the unskilled female who has chosen to work in lower paid retail etc chooses the time off with the (x) number of kids. No amount of discrimination laws are going to close that natural gap tendency unfortunately.

        However we need to be careful about too many handouts. The whole way the monetary system works is we reward economic effort that makes the economy move forward. Money is created for example by giving a house loan to someone who has met the qualification requirements to repay it as a debt over 20-30 years. That incentivises them to be productive, have a career, and keeps the economy moving, and they get a house at the end of it that backs their financial security for retirement.
        If we can structure a system that is sufficient to get by, but a bit less financially viable to stay home than work, then that encourages women to have careers and return to them where they can, as that benefits us all…. The last thing we need is to raise a generation of welfare dependent kids who don't know work ethic because we paid the parents to stay home and have half a dozen kids, lose connection with their careers, and not contribute to the workload of society. At the end of the day it's fairly simple, jobs have got to be done so society functions and we have to incentivise people to be successful and do them.

      • RocketSwitch on 02/09/2022 - 11:02
        -1

        Sorry, I didn't realise employers hired robots. You want the best out of your employees and if you treat them like this, they won't deliver and simply move on.

      • brandt on 06/09/2022 - 14:24

        Why should employers be responsible for employee's safety? Why should employers be responsible for employees bullying other employees? Why should employers be responsible for managing working hours? Why not just let the employees work to death and hire new ones?

        There are many conditions that high performing societies have identified as being useful for a happy and prosperous country along with a profitable business. I say we mandate 12 month maternity leave and businesses who fail were just not fit enough to survive in a capitalist society.

  • bigbadwolf21 on 29/08/2022 - 17:05
    +19

    The real question is "How much more tax are you willing to pay to fund this?" given the dire state of the federal budget.

    Also the Libs tried 6 months of paid maternity leave at full pay capped at $150k, when Abbott was PM and it was strongly opposed, accussed of only benefiting the rich.

    • dust on 29/08/2022 - 17:26
      +3

      Might not be funded by tax for private companies, it'd be funded by higher prices for products and services.

      • bigbadwolf21 on 29/08/2022 - 20:58
        -1

        So inflation goes up, followed by interest rates.

    • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 11:30
      +3

      Possibly a false economy. Have to compare what this costs vs the benefits for the economy if people (a) have kids and (b) don't lose their job/career when they have kids.

    • RocketSwitch on 02/09/2022 - 11:03

      It's having children. Future tax payers that's part of a biological process to raise a family. If anything, that's exactly where our tax should go. To help people looking after the next generation. Would you rather $150B on roads?

    • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 10:01

      We need quite a bit of change in our budget to fund hundreds of billions for US/UK nuclear submarines. Those are priority over maternity leave or universal free healthcare like bulk-billing GPs.

  • SBOB on 29/08/2022 - 17:14
    +6

    least 12 months full pay

    Whose version of full pay?
    If you're proposing the gov payments match a person's usual private earnings, then that is clearly going to be seen to be benefiting high earners over low earners.
    If youre proposing standardised 'centrelink' level payments for some extended period of time, different argument and more likely to be justifiable/debatable.

    Probably in a much better position to have such social benefit options if the last several terms of government hadn't racked up a trillion in debt though.

  • Ozbar Gain on 29/08/2022 - 17:14
    +11

    I'd like to see mums spending more time nurturing their babies, so have my vote!

    • kanmen on 29/08/2022 - 17:17
      +50

      I'd like to see dads spending more time nurturing their babies

      • SBOB on 29/08/2022 - 17:24
        +5

        Parental leave payments are available to either parent :)

        • trapper on 30/08/2022 - 14:52
          +5

          Why can't we both take a year off though. That would be nice. :)

      • Ozbar Gain on 29/08/2022 - 18:30
        +1

        So progressive!

      • Dreamcast on 30/08/2022 - 11:27

        Too busy getting milk.

      • BanannaMan on 30/08/2022 - 12:51
        +3

        Im taking parental pay for 4 months soon with my 3rd Daughter
        I cant wait!

        Work paid my way - great incentive for dads/partners

    • drfuzzy on 01/09/2022 - 19:45

      I don't want a kid but I wouldn't mind the government to pay for a trip to Bali

  • pegaxs on 29/08/2022 - 17:24
    +13

    Whatever SlavOz votes, I'll just do that. (And let's be honest, who saw this post and thought it was one of his *theirs"?)

    • [Deactivated] on 29/08/2022 - 18:53

      'Their' downvotes are amusing though

    • Chandler on 30/08/2022 - 12:01

      (And let's be honest, who saw this post and thought it was one of his *theirs"?)

      Not me. Un-opinionated title and unbiased poll options.

      • coffeeinmyveins on 30/08/2022 - 13:31

        ……Slavoz?

        • smartazz104 on 31/08/2022 - 14:48

          No that means it's the opposite of SlavOz.

  • bobbified on 29/08/2022 - 17:24
    +51

    Look at it from an employer's point of view - if every business was forced to pay 12 month's salary for everyone that decides they want to have children, I think they'd go broke real quick. Every business exists to make money and not act like a charity. If this sort of thing happens, I dare say it'll make many businesses ( OTHER than large corporations who might have plenty of funds) much less likely to want to employ women. (And when they do, they just won't make the reason so obvious!).

    If someone wants to have kids, I think they need to work out the finances and their career aspirations with whoever they intend to have this child/children with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having kids, but you can't just take all the benefits from it and expect everyone else to contribute to your own personal choices.

    • morse on 29/08/2022 - 20:12
      +4

      There definitely needs to be gov support if it goes to 12 months. The UK has 12 months I believe but not sure how it’s funded.

      • bobbified on 29/08/2022 - 21:21
        +8

        Government support is purely money and it doesn't address the issue that OP the earning gap in women's careers because they're taking time off.

        The truth is, it's all down to personal choices. Can't expect to take time off for kids, yet still be promoted etc to the same level (and salary) as those who have worked all the way through. It's either one or the other and not both. We can try and try, but nothing is ever going to make up for time.

      • akito on 30/08/2022 - 23:34
        +1

        The standard UK occupational maternity pay is 8 weeks full pay followed by 18 weeks half pay.

        You also get statuary maternity pay from the government which is:
        Pay
        Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is paid for up to 39 weeks. You get:

        90% of your average weekly earnings (before tax) for the first 6 weeks

        £156.66 or 90% of your average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) for the next 33 weeks
        SMP is paid in the same way as your wages (for example monthly or weekly). Tax and National Insurance will be deducted.

        So it isn't great since SMP caps at 156.66 after 6 weeks.

        • morse on 31/08/2022 - 04:00
          +1

          Thanks for the breakdown. It sounds similar to Australia but trickled out more slowly.

          I felt relatively lucky in Australia as I got 14weeks full pay from my employer and 14 weeks minimum wage (~$750/week at the time) from the government. I also took sick leave post-cesarean, which for my employer can be bundled in to extend the total maternity leave.

          Not everyone gets that much though, so I expect the UK is marginally better.

          It’s the partners I feel for. My husband got 2 weeks half pay from his employer and one week minimum wage from the gov. They can definitely use other leave but everyone tells them not to use it all as they’ll need leave once the kid starts going to daycare and gets sick all the time, which is entirely true.

    • skittlebrau on 30/08/2022 - 17:06
      +3

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with having kids, but you can't just take all the benefits from it and expect everyone else to contribute to your own personal choices.

      The counterpoint to this is that Australia's birth rate is in decline and our population is ageing. Increasing paid parental leave is one of several incentives that can be given to encourage people to have babies; the government wants people to have more babies.

      Then again, it's not like the earth can sustain our current human activity.

      • BepisCola on 30/08/2022 - 19:27
        +2

        Increased immigration would be a better alternative to adding to an already overpopulated planet if you’re wanting to increase economic growth

        • donga100 on 30/08/2022 - 21:56
          +1

          Not if you want to get re-elected.

        • t_c on 31/08/2022 - 15:28

          Planet is underpopulated according to Elon

      • nobro25 on 31/08/2022 - 07:53

        Decline in Birth rate doesn't mean much.
        For example if say the birth rate in Australia was 1 million last year and this year was 0.98 million. Sure it's negative increase but it's not that much you're still adding a significant amount of people to the population throughout the year.

      • ripesashimi on 31/08/2022 - 10:49

        Declining birth rate and aging population together still cannot counteract rising population. You can call them 'issues' but they exist for good reasons.

    • RocketSwitch on 02/09/2022 - 11:06
      -1

      There's already enough pressure on parents to get this to work. Before the pandemic, one parent was literally absent from their child's life. Because they would come home when they're asleep. If businesses can't adapt to life happening, then they should go broke. If they can afford to pay CEOs millions upon millions I am sure people have children is not going to send them broke.

      • bobbified on 02/09/2022 - 11:15

        If businesses can't adapt to life happening,

        Guess what happens when expenses go up for businesses? We, as the end customer, end up paying for it.

  • dust on 29/08/2022 - 17:28
    +21

    The main problem I see from this is if you're an employer and you're hiring and you have two prospective candidates and they are exactly the same, except one is a male and one is a woman of child bearing age, which one are you going to hire?

      • dust on 29/08/2022 - 17:29
        +27

        Losing an employee for a year is not the same as losing an employee for a year and still paying their salary the entire time.

        • MrFunSocks on 30/08/2022 - 13:57
          +10

          And having to hire someone else to cover their job in the meantime. The double whammy!

    • AustriaBargain on 29/08/2022 - 17:35
      +14

      Men should get maternity leave too imo. Have you ever listened to Cats In The Cradle?

      • dust on 29/08/2022 - 17:36

        Some employers also provide quite a bit of paid leave for secondary caregivers (and secondary caregivers who might become primary caregivers - i.e. if mum goes back to work after 10 months of maternity leave).

        • cookie2 on 29/08/2022 - 18:33
          +9

          But why does dad not get the same choice to be the primary caregiver? With the same options as women. I believe they should.

          • mxTDD on 30/08/2022 - 13:56

            @cookie2: Well they do in some workplaces. I had 14 weeks paid parental leave which I took after my wife went back to work.

          • od810 on 30/08/2022 - 13:57
            +1

            @cookie2: Dad does have the benefit of Primary carer if the family decides to have him has the primary carer, i.e. the wife back to work. I have a few friends doing that. Wives get 6 months primary carer role, husbands get the next 6 months.

          • Miss B on 30/08/2022 - 19:03
            +3

            @cookie2: My employer pays the same for the primary caregiver, regardless of genitals - 13 weeks full pay or 26 weeks half pay, not 12 months at full pay or anything. I can't remember how many weeks for the secondary caregiver, it's also regardless of genitals. Within 12 months, so if they both worked for the company they could each take off 6 months at half pay.

      • morse on 29/08/2022 - 20:18
        +3

        Parental leave for fathers or the non birthing parent (depending on the couple) is certainly lacking. In some cases you’d be better off leave wise as a couple adopting, regardless of your gender. Not that adopting is a realistic option for most Australians. Definitely for some but I believe it’s incredibly difficult.

        • cookie2 on 29/08/2022 - 22:02

          And $$$

          • Quantumcat on 30/08/2022 - 06:37

            @cookie2: Not if you adopt from foster care, then you are actually paid towards the costs of looking after the child

            • cookie2 on 30/08/2022 - 07:27
              +2

              @Quantumcat: I don't know too much re foster care but always saw foster as separate to adoption and no guarantees. Open adoption style also requires ongoing relationship with childs bio family and this isn't something I'd imagine everyone would want. I wouldn't. It just shouldn't be so difficult and expensive for people to adopt. The money in costs just takes away from what could be provided to the child/supporting family imo.

              • Quantumcat on 30/08/2022 - 07:30

                @cookie2: When you're adopting from overseas there is a lot of legal stuff that needs doing, and a lot of people need to be paid who provide you with home studies etc. It sucks but it all makes sense. It isn't like it is some arbitrary fee that goes to a company
                But yeah adopting from foster care definitely isn't for everyone

      • Taro Milk Tea on 30/08/2022 - 15:48
        -1

        Women demand equality but if men demand the same thing, then it's an issue…

    • morse on 29/08/2022 - 20:14
      +2

      What if it’s paid parental leave and you can choose which parent takes it? Then you have limited ways of knowing how it will play out with either.

    • RefusdClassification on 30/08/2022 - 12:48

      The government and private enterprise are full of social justice warriors; they will always choose the person who belongs to the most "minority" groups and ignore white males.

      • morse on 31/08/2022 - 04:06

        What?

        Sure there’s gender differences for parental leave for fairly obvious reasons, but ‘white’? Which organisation is giving white men less parental leave?

    • DingoBilly on 30/08/2022 - 15:28

      This is never the case. In your example I'd call them both up and ask some follow up questions for example to help differentiate more.

      And then just select the most suitable candidate…

  • AustriaBargain on 29/08/2022 - 17:34
    +2

    If we want to have a healthy population growth then we should be doing everything we can to encourage all women to have more children. Australia has a lot of room to grow and our economy demands population growth. A home grown and educated baby is better than importing adults. We are starting to invest a lot more into education so the time is right for a baby boom. And not just "women of calibre", all women should get 12 months maternity leave so they don't have to choose between a baby and an income or career.

    • ihbh on 29/08/2022 - 18:28
      +5

      If we want to have a healthy population growth

      Wrong assumption from the start.

      With people living longer and longer, the world can't afford this and will actually reach a steady state soon and then decline. China's population could halve by the end of the century.

      Hence we (and the rest of the world) need to be able to manage with a declining and aging population.

      • AustriaBargain on 29/08/2022 - 19:23
        +4

        People living longer and older is an even more reason to want more babies. We don't want to end up like Japan, where they are struggling to pay for the care of their elderly population. One day this century we will have robots that do most of the caring for the elderly, we shouldn't handicap our economy just to avoid more old people. A person that's worked their entire life in business, the arts, in a trade, in science, etc. is worth a lot more than caring for an old person for 20 years. And with automation even sooner going to take away a lot of jobs, why not plan ahead and create more jobs by making more old people 70 years ahead of time by birthing them now? Our grandchildren will be thankful to have real jobs, the old people will be thankful to be spending more quality social time with those younger workers while robots do all the menial and basic medical care.

        I think if we want to be able to afford those robots, or be designing those robots ourselves, we need as many day zero Australians as possible now. Even if the country went crazy with generating the biggest baby boom possible, we are still a country of just 26 million people so it would take hundreds of years to end up with a problematically high population.

        If we don't make our own babies then we will have to import adults overseas, but a lot of countries that are culturally similar to Australia aren't exactly experiencing the population growths they need either. Then again maybe the culture and politics of Australia could do with an overhaul, it hasn't exactly been a perfectly ran society for everyone so far. Pour more foreigners into the melting pot and it could shake things up enough to remove the sour taste that is Australia's brand of colonialism. It hasn't exactly worked out great for Indigenous Australians or the underclass. I doubt migrants are as addicted to News Corp as native Australians are. If we need to rely on millions of migrants in the decades ahead then it could be like a reset button.

        • ihbh on 29/08/2022 - 22:27
          +2

          We don't want to end up like Japan

          What if China, India, Nigeria, etc. all have this attitude? We'd (that is, the world) be f**ked.

        • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 30/08/2022 - 19:30
          +1

          Whew! What a long post!

          The whole system is flawed and unsustainable.

          In Australia, people are taught not be be responsible for anything- their finances, savings for hard days or for retirement.

          When you have to produce babies to pay taxes to maintain the well-being of adding population, the whole system stinks.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2022 - 07:24
        +6

        people don't understand that infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. the cries of "muh economy" ring out, as if that solves the problem of dwindling resources. can't sell what doesn't exist anymore.

      • trapper on 30/08/2022 - 15:12
        -1

        … the world … China …

        We are talking about Australia though, plenty of space here.

        • nobro25 on 31/08/2022 - 07:55

          Wrong! There's alot of land in Australia but it's not habitable due to poor management of infrastructure.

          • trapper on 31/08/2022 - 10:24

            @nobro25: There is a lot of land that is habitable also, think for a second.

          • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 10:24

            @nobro25: And tradies on six figures a year plus cash in hand. No way it will be developed with those labour costs.

      • gromit on 30/08/2022 - 15:30
        +1

        unfortunately our economic prosperity is built entirely around growth. without babies we need to up our immigration as we need the young population to support the aging population both financially and with people to staff the services. Still way too many people dependent on government handouts in retirement to stop population growth in this country without serious future problems.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join