Why Are People Paying for Childcare While WFH?

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.


  • +76

    Childcare in Australia is a complete rort. We need a royal commission into the industry. The costs are extortionate.

    • +15

      Royal commission will say that childcare centres need to have some profit despite the regulation. They might suggest only provide subsidies for new childcare centres. They could also say that commercial rent is massive.

      Did you know there's limits on how many a child carer can take? Otherwise there's 100 kids per person. As well, they need certification.

      How much do you pay for your kid? Multiply that by number of kids there. Divide that by number of staff. How many hours is your kid there? Divide that by the hours. So, how much are they making per hour per kid?

      If its too high, consider hiring a nanny then:)

      • +27

        Childcare centres don't make that much profit.

        There are legislated ratios the centre's have to stick to, i.e. one worker per x amount of kids. I know for babies it's one worker per 4 babies.

        The centre provides, among other thing, your child's food and nappies (if your kid is in them). The centre's all employ a chef to cook food.

        Then there's the centre director's wage and rent for the building/utility costs and maintenance costs for all the equipment in the centre. So many different costs you wouldn't even think of.

        • +14

          I haven't seen a poor childcare centre owner.

          Typical revenue would be about $3 million annually.

          Annual wage bill quite small as workers are paid very little.

          • +5

            @Stoozer: you noticed ABC Learning made a fortune out of childcare

            oh. wait

            • +5

              @dtc: ABC isn't a good example. It was just a poorly run business. A quote from one of the Administrators of ABC, Paul Sweeny at McgrathNicol:

              ABC Learning’s collapse wasn’t a reflection of the childcare sector. It did not collapse as a result of changes in government policy, demographics or economic conditions. It was a fundamentally flawed business which collapsed under the weight of unsustainable debt the moment it could not get new funding.


          • +3


            I haven't seen a poor childcare centre owner.

            There's well established child care centre in my suburban street, the owner drives a rather nice current model Porsche Cayenne. MSRP on a base model Cayenne is somewhere around $128K. According to a neighbour friend who had one of her kids there the centre was very expensive but they used it because it was practically across the street.

            Annual wage bill quite small as workers are paid very little.

            It's well known that child care workers are low paid. I'd really love to see a rough breakdown of where all the money goes. I feel the insurance would probably be outrageously expensive. My wife didn't return to work as a teacher after our second child was born because the day care fees for two kids would have used up most of her income back then so it wasn't worth her returning to work.

        • I think the ones with big profits they are talking about are the ones who charge extra, the more Lux options, where the owners of the centre all drive AMG SUVs… but yeah most childcare centre are essentially run as Not For Profit, and for the community they operate in.

        • +13

          Cant believe you received 6 up votes, you obviously don't know how a childcare centre works if you think theres not much profit. The way my wifes centre runs they would easily make up 300k profit a year. They are allowed to have 45 kids, 1 ECT teacher (about $35 an hour), 2 mediocre/experienced teachers ($25 an hour), about 4 trainees (piss cheap money). The food is cheap, always loaded with potato or rice, even the snacks they choose the cheapiest apples/pears to provide. With the centre charging upwards of $150 a child (excluding the subsidy) there is mad profits to be made.

          • @lemonboy308: It's really sad that full grown adults would look for ways to cut costs of looking after children like loading food with potato or rice while themselves making hundreds of thousands of dollars. I really (profanity) hate people.

            • +3

              @bkhm: 🥔 and 🍚 are a staple food, highly nutritious, easily accessible and easy to eat. It makes sense that the businesses serve this to the children.

        • +1

          I agree with this. I was the treasurer for a community run childcare center recently. What drives the cost up is the carers qualifications. The fact that they have to do programming and learning outcomes also adds to the cost. Not that programming and learning outcomes are bad… but it is a cost. The child-carer ratio is also a big driver for cost. If there's food, there's also food handling costs and admin, certification. There's audit costs. It all adds up. I was surprised at how little the centre was making.

        • +2

          I know investment bankers who quit their jobs to open childcare centres.

          • @mincemeat: Could you tell us more? My wife and I have seriously considered opening a day care center after losing our jobs earlier this year.

    • +8

      You have it backwards, the rort here is how expensive childcare zoned commercial leases are

      A moderately sized metropolitan childcare centre will often be paying minimum $300k a year in rent alone, up to 10k a week for pricier areas

      That's 2000 days of childcare (at $150 per day) each year just in rent, then add on about $2-4k a day for staff wages (admin, cooks, cleaners, a nurse at larger centres, managers, and of course the educators themselves)

      And add on smaller costs like supplies, insurance, gardening, maintenance, taxes, etc for another $1-2k a day on average (highly variable based on the quality of food, size of outdoor space etc)

      If a large metro centre has 100 spots a day, at $150 each, then they'll bring in a bit over $3.5 million a year (just working days, centres that work weekends/public holidays would earn more but have penalty rates), minus about $1 million in taxes (probably screwed that up, based on 30% tax)

      So with around 400k in rent, around 700k in staff costs and around 400k in misc costs a year, you're only breaking even for 6 months of the year

      But if the childcare centre owned the land they sit on, they could make the same profit with around $120 a day in fees

      This same thing applies to all commercial leases, people don't seem to realize that a lot of the cost increases over the years has been from sky-rocketing commercial rent

      • That's if they are renting, the ones I know of own their property. It's usually a converted house, and some they bought the lot next door when it came on sale and combined them

        • +1

          Rent or mortgage, it's still a cost.

          • @trapper: yes, but one is an investment that can be realised. I used to be contracted to a few childcare centres and they make a mint, if they are run correctly. There's actually a big issue in society at the moment, aside from the wealth divide getting bigger, there's an issue with no one being allowed to critique the fact that some people don't priortise things correctly. If someone can run a very profitable centre when someone else can't, the issue is likely to be management. I know one person who cut off from his 40 year successful small business because he couldn't justify doing it anymore because the child care centres he owned was so successful

            • +2

              @Jackson: There is money to be made in childcare otherwise no-one would do it.

              • @trapper: Wodges of cash, it's a nexus of guilty parents spending more, under the pump parents needing to work longer hours, a labour force which is the worst paid in the country, and government subsidies and kick backs that seem to just drive prices up. It's a disgusting mess, but one that doesn't have a great alternative in some ways, except maybe to make it a public service like schools

                • @Jackson: No I don't think that's true at all though. There is money to be made obviously in any business, but nothing exceptional about childcare.

                  My kids childcare is a non-profit and the fees are similar to any other centers around, there isn't millions piling up in the bank.

        • Are these in metropolitan areas? Most metro councils have incredibly strict rules about converting residential land into childcare facilities with long planning permit processes

    • I doubt that would happen considering Dutton owns a bunch.

    • +6

      Childcare is expensive but wages are high in Australia, and there are strict rules over how many carers per child (especially at young age), plus all the support staff, cooks, cleaners, gardeners etc

      My kids childcare for example is a non-profit, my wife is on the board so sees all the financials, they have a little war chest in the bank but nothing outrageous.

      They are literally just covering costs, that is what it costs.

    • -9

      The cost will go up even more if the left has their way and wants child care workers to earn the same as some cherry picked male dominated job.


    • Won't happen since Peter Dutton's wife IIRC owned a childcare centre in Queensland.

    • +2

      Is it really that high though? It costs on average about 130 per day per child. There's a ratio of 3-4 kids per educator.

      So maximum they get 400-500 per educator. You hire anyone with any qualification from 7am to 6pm and it'll likely cost you double that.

      And then that's not taking into account the support staff - admin, cooks, cleaners etc.

      And then you have rent and bills and nappies and all of that.

      It's quite expensive and that's why it's subsided but when you think about it, it's also quite reasonable.

      • -5

        It's baby sitting, and 3-4 children per 'educator' is ridiculous overkill. By the time they are in school, it'll be 20 kids per teacher at least.

      • +1

        It’s 4 kids per educator, I’ve never seen less. And the quantity increases as the kids get older. There’s no way that one educator is costing more than $520/day. Maybe the most qualified ones are getting around $35/hr which would amount to $315, but that’d be offset by the ones starting out at close to minimum wage. That’s approximately $200 of “gross profit” per four kids. My son’s daycare centre has at least 60 kids (figure could be higher but I’m estimating conservatively). That’s 15 groups of four = $3,000 per day.

        Sure the centre would need an admin staff, a cook and a cleaner. That’d be about $1k/day for all three together (at reasonably generous $35/hr+ salaries). So that’s $2,000 per day for overhead costs or $40k/month. There’s no way that other overhead costs are costing anywhere near the vicinity of $30k/month, leaving a very nice profit margin. The biggest overhead would be rent, so yeah somewhere in the middle of town I can understand costs being higher. But just looking near where I live, you can rent over 3 places something twice as big as my son’s daycare for about $6k/month. Sure figures will vary depending on the centre but that’s just an overview.

        I should also point out that:
        A. Most of the educators actually don’t work the 7-6pm hours, at least not the ones I know. They normally have some educators starting earlier and others finishing late because kids arrive at different times and between 7 and 9am and again 5-6pm, there are less kids in the centre than between 9-5.
        B. We pay $145/day and are nowhere near the CBD…

    • +3

      Yeah, I wonder what the deal is because child care workers are one of the lowest paid jobs in Australia, you get more working the checkout at Coles/Woolies.

    • -1

      also the fact that Australia’s coal and gas giants get more in subsidies than they pay in royalties, royal commission into all industries.

  • +94

    Perhaps they’re not paying someone to “take care of their kids” and sending them so they learn and develop.

    • +46

      I think OP thinks that caring for a child is like taking care of a (sick) dog. Wow just wow.

      Also childcare are kids, before they start school (e.g. usually under 5), at those ages, they aren’t that independent and requires at lot of attention. If you don’t give a kid human attention, and use a TV or tablet as a substitute, most people won’t consider that as “good” parenting.

  • +99

    Perhaps they have determined that working from home and having young kids at home are not necessarily complementary activities?

    • +19

      I know my clients don't feel like I am paying them the complete attention they deserve when my kids are screaming blue murder in the background all day and when my eyes are on my kids instead of the contract I'm meant to be reading with the client.

  • +157

    Person without kids asks about childcare


    Just when I thought you'd finally stopped being judgemental of anyone who isn't an employed single 30-something cis male with no kids

    • +75

      Can't even take a shit without being interrupted by toddlers, let alone work productively. haha

      Plus as @Dlw suggested, it's good for their development.

    • -157

      Person without kids asks about childcare

      Do you own a gun? If not, what gives you the right to comment on gun control laws?

      Are you a billionaire? No? Then I'm sorry, you can't comment on tax breaks and subsidies for rich people.

      • +72

        Red Herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

        I think you ought to work on your Blind spot (Known to others, Not known to self).

      • +20

        Another quality SlavOz comment

        No wait, I just stepped in some dog sh*t earlier and that's what I could smell

        My bad

      • +17

        Are you serious?

        • You do not need a gun to be affected by gun violence. / You do not need to be billionaire to have an understanding of economics to form an opinion on taxation for billionaires.

        • You do need children to be affected by children in your house while you're working.

    • +38


      childcare even though it's not currently needed?

      It is Working from home, the key here is working. Whilst working from home, therefore child minding/teaching your child during work hours is not part of your condition of employment.

      • -126

        Part of WFH is the added flexibility. Employers are not expecting people to be working their exact office hours. You can usually manage your own hours. Nobody's boss is going to blast them for going for chatting with the neighbour at 3.30 or cleaning up their house during slow times. I can't imagine anyone is going to get heat if they get called by their boss and say "can you hang on, I just need to check on my kid real quick".

        • +25

          Sounds like you got flexibility to work whenever. Some people are expected to be there/online/available 9-5.

        • +18

          Yes saying "can you hang on, I just need to check on my kid real quick" one time does not hurt, but imagine if that happens every few mins

          Lucky you. Looks like you have a very relaxed job.

        • +4

          wow. wow wow.

        • +2

          OMG, can you talk to my boss about this please?!

          My boss recently roasted me because he said that every employee should have a set 12pm -12:30pm lunch break and that he expects me to be in front of my computer at all times regardless if I have work to do or not because the company pays me to work from 9 to 5… :(

          • -13

            @b-t: Your boss either hates you/everyone or he's an incompetent douchebag.

            Hit up seek and look elsewhere. It's an employees market right now, employers are struggling to fill roles with talented people so they're getting desperate.

        • +31

          Lol flexibility doesn't mean don't work mate. There is zero chance you can do a full work day and have a toddler around.

          Having a toddler at home is not "give me a minute to check on my kid". They aren't a dog

        • +1

          Hahahahaha. People working from home are working longer

        • +5

          Mate you are dreaming.

          Young children need constant attention - literally all day long.

          The only time you could get any work done is when they are asleep.

        • Interesting to hear so many people say they dont have any time in the day working from home to look after kids. Most of my friends on salaries between 200k to multiple millions (working in the finance sector for the most part and some are in IT) seem to state they have a lot more free time and take their kids out to the parks multiple times a day, go to the gym, play golf etc and are loving working from home. Partially because less is expected or there is less work but also because they are more focused when they do do their work and have more flexibility on when they get their work done. They are all 2 income families barring 1 family. And have between 1-3 kids.

          • +1

            @lonewolf: Ok, you say you have friends that earn 200K-Millions and they don't actually do much work? That sounds a bit like BS but anyway…

            That has nothing to do with the amount of time required to look after a child does it?

            99.9% of people have full working days and in Australia there are many working longer than the standard 38 hour week. Its not possible to cram a 45hr week into 16hr and your dealing with people so you can't just disappear for hours. In fact its rather common for employment contracts to state that you will use your time solely for company business.

            • +1

              @Hairy Nosed Wombat: Considering you start of by basically calling me a liar there really isn't much point in continuing this conversation

              Not all kids require the same level of attention as it depends on their personalities as well as also how they have been brought up till that point. Even babies can be vastly different. I was actually trying to have a genuine conversation as about it as I was surprised by some of my friends in high finance Jobs who during covid have had it pretty easy in terms of work. But anyway since I am full of BS……

              It amazes me how toxic ozbargain community had become. It used to be that people could actually have a discussion on (shock horror ) a discussion forum without it getting toxic. But there are so many people on ozb these days who seem to thrive on it.

          • @lonewolf: It's not about not having time to look after the kids, but not having time to look after kids for entire day. Me and my wife both works from home, Our 2 year old wakes up at 6. he goes to have a nap at around 11:30AM and sleeps till 2 PM. So what we get working time is only hours when he is sleeping. Rest of the time he needs someone to play with him or wants to play with our Laptop/computer. he goes to bed at around 7pm-8pm. so should we tweak our working hours only 2 hours in morning and rest at night? No matter how flexible an employer is, this is not acceptable at so many levels.

            • @dharmesht: If you both are working from home, cant you take turns looking after him as well as also teaching him to have a bit of alone time / independent playing as he is getting to the age where he will have to learn that? or is that not possible due to certain needs / requirements?

              I think there are a lot of variables at play, looking at my different groups of friends, what i have noticed are some kids are capable of playing by themselves and others require a lot more attention from people. Some times it might be genetics, sometimes it might be what they have learnt / gotten used to, different learning timelines etc.

              In terms of time, i think it really depends alot on your work and employer, like i said i seem to have a lot of friends especially the higher earning ones in finance who seem to have different lifestyles working from home as opposed to other friends in other industries WFH.

              I think also some people have their parents or siblings helping out and others dont have that option or choose not to for whatever reason. I know a family who have 3 adults in the household and 2 kids. 2 of the 3 adults were inbetween jobs, the working adult was complaining to me he has no time to do any work because he was spending most of the time with the kids (ages 4 and 6). Thats when i realised the 2 non-working adults (wife and sister) were not doing much of the helping out because they wanted to do their own things as well as when they did, all of them would get involved with the same kid at the same time instead of divide and conquer.

              Each family has their own methods and ideas on how to do it. I guess though there is also the catch that sometimes some families arent ready or capable of handing having kids and maybe should make that choice too. I am not a big fan of parents who have kids and then complain all the time about the lack of time, when they are really lucky to have kids and Australia provides a decent level of welfare and support for families from tax payers compared to most other countries. And there are lots of people out there incapable of having kids and would love to be able to have kids regardless of how busy or lack of time they feel they get from having kids.

              WFH may have been a burden for some, but other parents are quite happy that they actually get to work from home as well as at the same time spend time with their kids and watch their kids growing up. And the kids get to enjoy more time with their parents as opposed to only seeing their parents at night. There are pros and cons but generally i am sure most parents and kids would love to have more time together than less and WFH has (perhaps not in the ideal way) provided parents and kids to have a lot more time together. I know back in the day most families were single incom families and really the stay at home parent and kids really got to bond and learn together and enjoy their time together. Generally the whole family and household was better for it.

              • @lonewolf: I think you are trying to generalise the topic on the basis of what you have seen till now. This is endless debate, what works for one family, may not necessarily work for others. Each kid is different and each parent is different. Saying WFH gives me more time to spend with my kid does not mean I spend 16 hours with him, that means, i save the time of commute to/fro my work and utilise that time to spend more with my kid. And I think for kid's social development day care is as important as time with parents. There are things that we as parent wont be able to teach or are not even capable of teaching, what teachers at day care teach them. They learn to socialise. etc.etc. Like I said, this is endless debate.

                • @dharmesht: Yes which is why i said there are many variables involved.

                  But daycare is a relatively new concept. Kids have been growing up without daycare for a very long time. Generally it was through parents and / or the help of extended families and in the villages, raised by the community. There are development and social things kids miss out on from lack of school but then kids get more bonding time with immediate family as well as kids are allowed to socialise and have play dates with other kids these days.

                  Like I said there are pros and cons with everything and the WFH hasnt been for ever its generally only been during lockdown and in some cases since covid began. I remember the days of normal life,where people were complaining they dont get enough time with their kids because they are always at work and the kids are always in day care / school. There are always good and bad in situations. Question is which ones you identify with more and value more.

      • +3

        My money is on you don't have any kids and have some job that is based on deliverables vs the presence (e.g. you do not have to answer phones, sit though meetings, answer co-worker questions in real time… but you have to finish task X by tomorrow noon)

        You sound like totally clueless, heartless person with very low empathy or EQ

    • +12

      Only ppl with kids can comment on ppl with kids?


      I would not have picked you for an identity politics crusader.

      • +3

        Expecting people who know what they're talking about is a hallmark of being an identity politic crusader, huh?

        • -56

          I'll have you know that I have sick dog who is elderly with arthritis. He needs help getting around, poor mut can't even take a piss without assistance.

          Of course, I have to do all this during work hours. Maybe the government should pay for my vet bills and doggie hotel, and if you disagree, your opinion doesn't count because you don't know what it's like to have a sick dog so you have no right to comment!

          • +42

            @SlavOz: Oh hello, it's our old friend False Equivalence.

            I was actually being sarcastic when I asked you to bring up more fallacies.

          • @SlavOz: You mean dog that is immobile? That cannot wander around and asks for snacks, hugs, game, another TV channel etc…

            Oh poor you… let me get you a violin.

            P.S. I do feel sorry for your dog

          • +1

            @SlavOz: "poor mut can't even take a piss without assistance."

            I think he's faking it. Does he wink at you when you finished him off?

        • +4

          No, it's not. But excluding ppl to talk about something because they do not belong to that particular group is dangerous.

          • +2

            @Eeples: There's a difference between being excluded and being criticised for not having knowledge on the subject you're discussing.

            "dangerous". I feel like we're about 2 comments away from Godwin's Law, everyone.

            • +3

              @CrowReally: That's true. There is.

              And yes, I admit to watching one too many Jordan Peterson videos while being in lockdown. :)

            • +1

              @CrowReally: I did take the comment "person without kids asks about childcare" to be excluding someone based solely on that.

              I still do.

              • +2

                @Eeples: Well, ok. It sounds like you would phrase "person with no knowledge about X talks about X" differently, which is fine.

                Is telling someone "You know nothing on this subject, I don't want to hear what you have to say" excluding them, incidentally? Is there a difference between the right to voice an opinion and whether someone has to listen to it?

          • +18

            @Eeples: You guys sound straight from 2016 with these unironic 'anti-sjw' takes

            • No one is excluding anyone from commenting or asking about childcare.
            • OP, who apparently does not have children, or live with children, is asking why people pay for childcare, which is a fine question to ask.
            • People with children answer and explain to him why.
            • OP, who apparently does not have children, or live with children, tries to argue otherwise. Which is ludicrous, because you need to be affected by living with children, to form an experienced opinion on whether they need to get childcare.
            • OP tries to argue false equivalences such as gun control and taxation, in which you do not need to be a gun owner to have an experienced or informed opinion on gun control, and you do not have to be a billionaire, to have an informed opinion on taxation of billionaires.

            If you still unironically want to call me an identity politics crusader, you've been watching too much Shapiro/Peterson/etc. and I wish you luck getting out of that hole.

            • -14


              OP tries to argue false equivalences

              You know, you've said that multiple times now, yet you've conveniently always refrained from explaining your reasoning of why you think it's a false equivalence.

              The point I'm making is that it's commonplace for people to form opinions on things they have no direct experience with. I would bet that you do it with many things as well. Most people are politically clueless yet they're still forced to have an opinion and cast a vote. The notion that only people with children can possibly understand the challenge of having to multi-task and attend to commitments only makes you sound like an elitist.

              Everyone has commitments in life. Some of us have sick parents, pets, mental health concerns, chronic pain, run a business on the side, a friend with severe depression, rehabilitating after an injury, the list goes on. To suggest that nobody else could possibly understand the challenge of working while also dealing with personal stuff is frankly just bullshit and one of the main reasons people without kids find the "woe is me" attitude of parents so insufferable. Get over yourself.

      • +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.

        My point was well and truly made with that gem from OP.

        If you really think that someone who hasn't raised kids would have any idea of what a full week with them would be like, then you're just as delusional as the OP.

        Here's an example, I don't know the stresses a police officer would have in their day-to-day life, would I be a good person to get an opinion of why they may need less hours or an increase in their pay? Would I be a good person to ask why a nurse would need more support in their job, or less overtime? Or would any advice I give just be based on assumptions and misinformation?

        Besides, you answered as to why there's no need to give the OP more than a couple of comments in any of his shitposts. Hell he's even been PB'd for troll/inflammatory posts before.

        • -28

          you really think that someone who hasn't raised kids would have any idea of what a full week with them would be like, then you're just as delusional as the OP.

          I am the OP.

          You seem to be missing the part where you don't need to be a murderer to have a valid opinion about murder laws, nor do you need to be a rich business owner to suggest that mega corporations shouldn't get tax breaks.

          It's almost like identity politics is a load of shit, and setting silly rules on who can or can't comment on something just because they don't meet your arbitrary standards is just elitist gatekeeping.

          • +16


            I am the OP.

            No shit… my comment wasn't replying to you. Need a lesson in forum formatting do we?

          • +11

            @SlavOz: Your opinion might be 'valid' but it sure as shit is so way off the mark from being remotely rooted in fact that it might as well be from another universe. Carry on.

          • +20

            @SlavOz: You can have an opinion but that doesn't mean it is a valid opinion.

            adjective: valid
            (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

            You have demonstrated very clearly you have no experience of caring for young children. Children 0 thru ~4 years old are not able to manage and care for themselves for any length of time. They need guidance and supervision of an adult carer around the clock.

            For many people WFH has not resulted in a significant change in expectations around work deliverables. If your work requires interaction with others it is next to impossible to do that when caring for a young child. If your work requires periods of unbroken concentration greater than a couple of minutes long, it is next to impossible to do that when caring for a young child.

            Many organisations have policies forbidding working at home while having to care with children under a certain age. They do this to mitigate WHS risk and other liabilities.

            For an individual carer to WFH with such a child is basically impossible. Day care or care carried out by another adult away from the home is the only option. Access to day care is an absolute necessity, the only other option is stop working.

            Even the most understanding and flexible manager is going to draw a line when every meeting with their direct report is accompanied with constant noise, screaming and tantrums in the background. There are limits to WFH flexibility and caring for young children frequently falls outside of those limits.

            An 8+ year old child is completely different. For the most part you can situate them in a different part of your home independently for a fair amount of time and be comfortable they are safe and perhaps working on their homeschooling tasks.

          • +1


            It's almost like identity politics is a load of shit, and setting silly rules on who can or can't comment on something just because they don't meet your arbitrary standards is just elitist gatekeeping.

            It's not about gatekeeping people from commenting on something they haven't personally experienced - it's about people who have formed their own ideas of what's involved and refuse to accept comments from people who are experienced in the matter.

            It's like refusing the advice from your doctor because they haven't had arthritis…

            • -4


              It's like refusing the advice from your doctor because they haven't had arthritis…

              Very true, so you admit that people can have valid opinions/knowledge on something even if they've never experienced it first hand?

              Being a parent doesn't make you a child expert, and it certainly doesn't make you a source of wisdom on government economic policy and taxation.

              • +2

                @SlavOz: Of course they can, but those without experience or knowledge in an area should take on board feedback from those who do.

                No being a parent does not make you a child expert, but it definitely makes you more suitable to comment on the ability for someone to work from home with children than someone who is not even a parent.

        • Besides, you answered

          Sorry, wrong member referenced in that

    • CIS??? heres a acronym WTF

      • +4

        Pretty commonly used and heard these days…

        Cisgender (sometimes cissexual, or shortened to cis) describes a person whose gender identity is the same as their sex assigned at birth.

        • common for who? Only a specific community need to use a description for a man who is born a man and woman who is born woman and dont need clarification by giving them a title

          • +4

            @DisabledUser344202: It's been very commonly used in language, media and social media over the last couple of years in arguments from any SJWs or members of the LGBTQI+ community.

            Google would've netted you an answer quicker than writing out your comment and you would've learnt something

            • +1

              @spackbace: as already stated, common in your sphere, doesnt mean its common elsewhere.

              No need to place labels on people unnecessarily unless theres some confusion

              • -2

                @DisabledUser344202: This reminds me an article a few years back, the headline was dramatised to appeal to the screeching SJWs as something like "first ever man gives birth to baby after pregnancy with transgender partner".

                In other words, a woman gave birth.

              • @DisabledUser344202: Why do I need to explain an abbreviation I used in my comment? It's not even the context that's your issue, it's your lack of understanding of a term. People use many terms in everyday language, slang, etc, which others might not grasp, and when they don't they don't jump up and down, they seek to find out to better understand.

                I dunno about you, but if I don't 'get' something, I either pass it by or I seek to find out, which is a pretty easy thing these days.

                • +1

                  @spackbace: its a word, not some complex mathematical equation that people dont get

                  Were all people, theres no need to compartmentalise others due to your own identity issues

                  • @DisabledUser344202:

                    its a word, not some complex mathematical equation that people dont get

                    But you don't understand the word, hence your initial confusion…

                    theres no need to compartmentalise others due to your own identity issues

                    If you feel the need to write that then the issues are all yours

                    Though you're likely the same sort who would say that cis is a bad term, yet male is fine, without realising the irony

    • -1

      You, of all people, finger wagging about being judgemental is just pot calling kettle black

      • +1

        Lol, I had to go back on your post history to even find out what your issue is, coz frankly I had NFI what you were on about

        Good to know that you still haven't forgotten me after nearly 3 years lol

Login or Join to leave a comment