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.


      • Wow, you deemed worth commenting only the sarcastic part of my post? Suit yourself, seems you have hardly anything to say about its merit.

        According to your logic of equivalence, private health care is an alternative to the public one, plus it does not tax the society with burden of caring for others. Profit?

        Apply your own logic to your point of view, before trying to raise a point and making a fool out of yourself.

        • -1

          Minding your kids yourself is free.

          Private health insurance is not free. It requires people to make a significant financial commitment and potentially discriminates against the under-priviliged. This is why Medicare is important.

          • +4

            @SlavOz: Minding your kids costs time mate. Your time is a currency you exchange for money with your employer, and there is a limited supply of it through the day.
            If you cannot dedicate that time to work, you risk losing source of income, losing opportunities for a promotion, and also risk developing work-related stress. That leads to long term health problems.

            Kids are an investment into the future of society. That's why society has developed childcare by the 19th century - to help with the process of shaping them into their best possible selves.
            In order to make them grow up into smart and socially adjusted people, you need to expose them to stimuli, which are not only present at home. That is especially important when they are young, as their personalities are very plastic, and can be shaped with a good balance of parent time, early-life education, and presence of other kids who learn from each other that there is no one way to do any particular thing, and that there is more than one point of view on everything.
            Keeping a small child at home all the time will only make them grow into a recluse, finding it hard to connect with people, and with point of view mimicking their parents'.

            If you consider above irrelevant, you probably need to learn a lot more about children before you spout your nonsense here again.

  • +2

    I think the OP missed the "working" part of WFH.

    How is someone meant to be productive and actually do work when they have a young child to look after and entertain?

    What's your job? It obviously doesn't require you to actually do any work.

    • +5

      Judging from his previous posts, paraphrasing: thinking while looking out the window.
      Sounds like an entry or regular level job with no significant accountability, nor stakes or associated stress. Probably that's why he does not perceive not being able to focus for longer than 5min with a child around would not bother him.

    • Must be a government job.

  • +5

    Christ there are better ways to get human attention than this kind of shitposting. Not sure why people are even giving it airtime, this is so last decade.

    • Aren't you giving it airtime by reading it and even posting a reply?

      • Poor choice of words, I should have asked why people are even bothering to argue when they could just be cracking jokes about this nonsense instead.

  • +2

    I have a better one for OP, if he wants to grab attention: Should HECS be retired? Financing socially beneficial services from my tax money is a waste. Discuss

    • -1

      OP needs more hugs I reckon.

    • -1

      If there was a costless alternative to a university education, in the same way there is a costless alternative to daycare, then yes I'd definitely be asking questions around how much we really need HECS. I think any sane person would, especially when that costless alternative is actually proven to be able to yield better outcomes.

  • I have a primary school aged child and a childcare aged child, and this is stupid.


    Childcare is not.

  • +4

    Work and take care of my 1.5 year old HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • +1

    Genuine question. How on earth did everyone in the eastern states cope during the peak of the pandemic when even childcare centres and schools were closed except to parents of essential workers who couldn't WFH? Did every parent take leave for the entire period, or just manage to make it work?

    • Childcare (in NSW) at least was never closed, and from memory they said something along the lines of don't send if you are able. Dealing with a 6yo by himself with two parents WFH barely manageable, but only with the 3yo still going to daycare. (I think we kept the 3yo out a couple of weeks). Nothing really changed in his world other than not getting to go to his favourite park lol.

    • Mother-in-law helped out initially. Family friend helped babysit. We used up some annual leave. I tried working longer hours over 4 days, and then working shorter hours over 7 days. Sigh of relief when I was eligible as an authorised worker during the most recent restrictions. Our two-year-old daughter is able to attend childcare four days a week while I take annual leave one day a week.

    • My in-laws were out of work due to the pandemic so were able to take care of my son whilst the wife and I worked from home.

    • We have a two year old and both of us worked from home during the first run of closed childcare lockdowns.
      First thing each morning we would review calendars and try to come up with a plan that usually failed. It was super stressful and exhausting.
      This most recent lockdown I organised to do the morning shift looking after my daughter until she was asleep for her nap, then my wife looked after her from 3-8pm whilst I worked.
      Different kind of tiring, some meetings I couldn't move bluey babysitter would look after her (TV). We didn't like it, but we pushed through and today she went back to daycare and man was it a relief!

  • The reality is people with kids should be paying less tax because we’re raising the next generation of tax payers.

  • This is a troll post right. I sure hope you’re not serious. If you have kids (assuming you don’t from the post), then your kids must be extremely independent to have such a strong view.

  • why isnt there a limit - like petrol prices are regulated, etc so why not child care centres etc? and nursing homes

  • +5

    Why is anyone giving this post airtime by responding to the nonsensical questions? This guy is a certified moron, as evidenced by his many shitposts over the last year.

  • +2

    I am consistently surprised at how easy it is to troll this forum.

  • +4

    Wow another quality post by SlavOz that's self-centred around himself/herself and unable to understand other people's situation.

    Not everyone's jobs are 'flexible' just because they're working from home and can duck off for few minutes whenever they want and look after the kid. In fact, a lot more people have reported that they've worked harder & extra hours due to working from home.

    Some people have back to back meetings all day, some have daily/weekly targets to meet, some require constant monitoring of systems. Imagine have to look after a toddler while working - it's extremely stressful.

    Time to take a good hard look in the mirror.

  • The problem is you don't have kids .
    You don’t understand how much work they are. They don't just sit around quietly while you work

    Toddlers need to be fed . Nappy changes . Helped with going to the toilet . They want to be played with . They have tantrums . They argue with other siblings ect ect

    You cant work a full time job WFH and attend to all of this

    It’s impossible

    • +5

      The problem is you don't have kids .

      It's not his only problem.
      Though based on his post history, I would lean towards it's best if he does not to have kids ..

  • Do you have a job that requires no work? You need to baby sit a 3 year old and see how much spare time they give you

  • +2

    Holy Moly mate. I kind of get what you're saying. Ignorant me might have even said the same thing a few years ago. But mate, a two year old is a CONSTANT fulltime job.

    Like you can't just check on them every half our. Turn your back for five seconds and they might be drawing on the wall or falling down the stairs or anything in between. I don't even get five minutes to have a poo, as my boy now thinks that's a team effort.

    I thought I would be able to study while having a toddler. Boy how wrong I was. So very wrong.

  • +2

    Lol. SlavOz, the troll that keeps on trolling and people fall for it everytime.

    • Seriously. I was going to post on the thread (wfh full time with a child in daycare) until I realised who was the OP. Life is too short to deal with internet trolls.

  • +3

    It's a troll post, but I'll respond anyway.
    I used to be like OP, I think of people with children who take a day off because "no one is available to take care of my (insert toddler age here) year old," is simply lazy ass, lucky them they get to use "taking care of kids" as their legitimate reason to slack off.

    And then I have my own kid… And I work full time… When lockdown happened, I can only say I'm thankful I have my mum helping out, otherwise I'll have to take unpaid days off. You just can't work full time and be productive when there is a toddler around.
    If you compare it to the dog that's very sick/old that need assistance even to sit, at least you can "ignore" the dog and do some work. The toddler on the other hand, requires constant attention, playtime, learning time, nap time, feeding time. And if you have a kid just learning to walk, good luck getting a job done while supervising him/her.

    Childcare educators can take care of 4 kids at once because that is their full time job. That's what they do all day long. If you get them to take care of 4 kids while doing another full time job, they won't be able to do that either.
    Try taking care a toddler (less than 3 years old) for 1 week while doing 5 days a week full time job and see how you go. Don't just do it for 1 day and feel like you know it all :D

  • +2

    Lol I'd rather the parents put their kids in daycare and actually do some work - as opposed to bludging playing Lego all day while the workers without children pick up the slack.

    • Please don't call playing Lego all day bludging. It is not bludging. It is soul destroying. I like lego but not for 8 effing hours a day every day. There are things I used to find fun that I can now no longer ever do again, thanks to my kids.

  • +1

    LOL. One of those threads where you read for a couple of minutes, have a laugh and move on without a comment about the topic being discussed.

  • +3

    Seriously? Trying to WFH with a 2 year old is so painful. All she wants to do is be involved and be around you in the office making a lot of noise or wanting something. My wife and I are taxpayers too and pay my fair share, so am I not entitled to the subsidy?

    Its clear you (the OP) don't have kids and have no understanding on the daycare subsidy system. I only get 50% covered, it still costs me $60 a day to send my daughter to daycare. It adds up and I would rather save the money, but the benefits I have seen in just 12 months is amazing, she had developed a lot and it is worth the cost.

    My daughter only goes 2 days a week and the other 3 days she is with the in-laws, so only 2 days isn't a lot.

    Everyone I talk to at work is constantly on about dropping off or picking up their kids from daycare

    Really? Are they doing this during their work hours? If not, then what is the problem?

    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

    Maybe ask and see what their thoughts/reasons are

    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.

    They are a taxpayer too, so they should get something for it. I wouldn't have a problem with my daughter being around if she was easy to have around, but she isn't. She is 2 and needs attention, how can she go 9 hours on her own trying to keep herself occupied? Her going to Daycare means she can socialise and learn.

    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?

    Daycare isn't completely paid by the taxpayer. I only get 50% covered by my wife and I, it still costs me $60 a day!

  • +1

    If there is at least one adult at home, there should be no child care subsidies. Lets take it further. Middle class people with two incomes are rolling in money, let scraps child care subsidies altogether for these rich aspirationals.

    Time to end middle class welfare. Welfare programs should be strictly limited to the proletariat. The middle class is supposed to be self sufficient, not welfare kings and queens.

    The reason why childcare is so expensive is because it has been massively distorted by government intervention. Without nanny state meddling, prices would drop significantly. Like nursing homes, child care centres generate huge amounts of money for the owners. Lots of politicians own one or more.

    • +2

      Middle class people with two incomes are rolling in money, let scraps child care subsidies altogether for these rich aspirationals.

      Define middle class?

    • You're right to an extent, childcare subsidies are pretty generous. My kids childcare is $120/day (includes food, nappies, linen which some places don't). We get a 50% subsidy have both me and my partner work (but not quite full time). My pay is about $400/day after tax. So if I didn't get the subsidy there would still be a decent incentive for me to work.

      It's not as good an incentive for others, as the income test is across the couple if one person earns more, lets just say $100k husband $60k wife based on full time. The wife's earnings my be $250/day take home after tax, so if they paid $120/day, it would be almost half her earnings on childcare and it may not be very attractive for her to work. If she's only paying $60 for childcare, she may be more inclined to work. Lower income earners get higher incentives, up to 80% so if a single mum doesn't work or earns very little, maybe does some study or volunteering, she would only pay $20-30 per day.

      So why does the government want to incentivize people to work/study and have their kids in childcare?

      • It wants the second wage earner, usually (but not always) a women to go back to work or study after having kids, so that in the long term there will be less unemployed and less people dependent on welfare

      • if someone spends a long time childrearing and unemployed they may deskill and find it difficult re-enter the workforce later. If this person has become dependent on their partner for income and they later separate, this person may become dependent on welfare, particularly when they are older.

      • mental health reasons, it can be very challenging for some people to be at home with their kids 24/7 especially those who have no family support like grandparents, aunties/uncles. If they spend some time working or studying it's good for their mental well being and when people are mentally well, it's good for society and costs less to the government elsewhere.

      • early childhood education. for some kids, particularly from families with lower education, kids have better educational and developmental outcomes by attending childcare and later kindergarten programs. This helps society later when these kids are more capable, employable etc.

      In terms of incentives distorting the market, I think this is always true. There isn't a true free market in Australia, incentives come to play in agriculture, construction, energy, mining, education, and health. Realistically the profits are not that big per kid and there's a big part of the sector that is not for profit, which the for profit centres need to compete with. When you look at the costs of running centres (building, food, staff, educational materials) they are working hard to make those profits, paying taxes on it, employing people and providing a service at the same time. If there was no incentive the quality might go down and there would be less participants and less employment.

      So whilst there are people like me that do quite well out of childcare subsidies, there are others where it really does make the different between working or not working. Even on my income I would question how much I work if there was no incentive, which wouldn't be good for me or society in the long run.

      • Child care subsidies were also not as generous until recent years. I do like the change to vary the rate of subsidy depending on the household income as it’s a significant incentive to get that second parent (namely the woman) to get back to work faster and remain upskilled.

    • Agree. Subsidies are going to super wealthy families earning hundreds of thousands per annum.

  • +4

    The last 10 weeks or so has been hard for us (VIC). Both of us working full time and have deadlines and meetings to attend.

    Try to explain to a 2 years old why they cant do certain thing whilst you need to work is next to impossible.

    You cant even go to the toilet without being followed.

    We have been working almost from 7am-9pm accomodate the loss of the productivity during the day.

    This has not been our choice but this is the reality of life.

    Good luck in the future years when you have kids and doing WFH. You’ll know exactly how it is.

  • +3

    Because Peter Dutton's wife owns child care centres.

    • If this is the reason, thank God she does!

      • Crony capitalism FTW!

  • +3

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

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

    Fixed it for you

  • Happy for people to make their own choices for themselves and their family. I am however generally against government subsidies (of which I have been a recipient of) in generally all fields.

  • +7

    I use it just because I enjoy peace and quiet. Thanks for subsidising it SlavOz!

    • +6

      i don’t even need to send my kids to daycare, but i do it just to piss off SlavOz and make him fund me being able to have a day playing PS5 games with some peace and quiet

      • Please don't complain when your child is all grown up and can't even support himself financially because of the ludicrous national tax debt you racked up for him.

        On the down low, I may not be living in Australia in the future, so that's one less taxpayer covering your PS5 sessions.

        • +7

          I may not be living in Australia in the future

          have a +1 from me

        • +1

          Don't worry chicken little, humans invented money, they'll invent a way out of it. You can release your pearls there pet.

      • Hmm, good idea. I think I`ll have a few more children and send them to childcare when they are 8 months old, just to piss off SlavOz and gobble up his tasty tasty tax money. Gotta be quick though, before he pouts and leaves Oz with his precious "highly specialized" work skills ;)

        • Oz with his precious "highly specialized" work skills ;)


  • +2

    Said like someone childless. Try raising toddlers and getting work done, I dare you. I challenge you to get a days work from home done with young kids around.

    Yet another slavoz is out of touch comment

  • There is no way I can do my job and look after my children, one of them is going to be neglected.

  • +3

    On all the rubbish these governments spend money on - child care is not one of them if anything it should be free.

  • +1

    Mate, you obviously don't have toddlers or have both parents working.

    Using your commonsense, how the hell do you think they're gonna do their work?

    Also, some parents need a break, try never having me time, see how you go.

    And if you have an issue with the government spending taxpayer money, how about $64 million to implement a vax pass that doesn't do shit????????

    Priorities mate.

    Kids are the future, if no one had kids, no more humanity get it? People also need to work. Get it? You can't do both while the parents cop nothing, that's what the government is there for to SUPPORT the people. Not make it hard for them and take their freedom.

  • +7

    I ran out of negs, can I get some more?

    • +1

      More than happy to donate :)

      • +3

        Where in the world are you? :)

        • (You're the first person to ask so, thank you ^_^ )

          That's for you to find out :)

  • Work from home with kids under school age. …. good luck with that.

  • I had this exact conversation with my wife who is a HR manager this morning.

    They are currently counselling an employee because she was late for a meeting as she was "driving around because its the only way she can get her daughter to sleep".

    I mean that pretty much sums it up… I'm 200% for flexible working to improve your family life, however if you're being paid to do a job, there is no way you can do that job with a child. You are too distracted, and cannot focus on the work someone is paying you to do. I take exception to the schooling from home thing, that was unavoidable, but when child cares are available, either send your children, or keep them home and either a) don't work, or b) work around them - and make it known… but i doubt you want to be working all night!

      • +7

        Very simple minded view

        If a child is crying and needing attention while driving a car, you can stop and give them your focus - thats on you and your time.

        If a child is crying and needing attention while working, you can stop and give them your focus - thats on your employers time. You're not being paid to look after your child.

  • +2

    I refuse to believe this isn't a baiting troll

    • +3

      I have noticed it now as well, since the guy just keeps at it, just slightly modifying his argument, and selectively replying to ones raised by basically everyone else.

      Alternatively, he is just ignorant.

      • +2

        Yeah it's been explained many times over now and he's doing exactly what you describe. I maintain that he is lonely and needs moar hugs.

  • +3

    Tell me you have no kids without telling me you have no kids…

    Childcare isn't having someone else look after your kids, it is education, it is socialization, and importantly, while working from home, you are still working, you're not at home to look after your kids, you are home to perform your job function.

    I worked from home for the majority of the last year with 2 different companies. First company was very hard lined, I needed to have my kids in care otherwise I would be getting warning for interruptions etc, ended up getting the flick as I 'cared more about my family than the company'. no shit.
    Second company is much better, understood what it took and I was able to reduce the day care load considerably, but still sent them as they have friends there, they do activities and events that I wouldn't be able to do as I am busy working earning money.

    Also, that subsidy you're complaining about funding, I pay $120 per child per day. I get a $11 subsidy per week per child.

  • WAACN…. and as such we don't mind sending the neighbours child to school, even though we may not have any ourselves. It is all because of WAACN, we form a collective conscious that HYB.

  • +1

    Reminds me of a comment in an irrelevant news article the other day, "Tell me you have kids without telling me you have kids".

    I suppose for this thread topic, it is "Tell me you don't have kids without telling me you don't have kids" lol

  • +2

    Proof that most questions are really statements

  • +6

    OP, you should take advantage of government subsidised education and complete a basic economics course. Your ignorance to the fundamental principle of economic cost is mind blowing, and the reason why no one will ever take you seriously with these outlandish questions.

    • -6

      Cut it out man. You wanna talk about sensible economics while you're here demanding the government gives you free money for getting pregnant. It's not a good look.

      • +2

        You might want to watch out with personal attacks mate. Not a good look.

        The government provides CCS, so that:
        - you can work uninterrupted, and earn more money this way which means government will get more tax out of you as well,
        - your children, who are the future of the nation by the way, get a quality early-childhood education, which sets them up to be productive and smart members of the society

        CCS is % based on your expected income every financial year. If you earn too much - you don`t get anything.
        Moreover, it is funded from our taxes - by paying them, we are effectively getting back some of our monies the taxman claimed. Or do you believe that the government has its own money, which miraciously appears in its coffers out of nowhere?

        Not at all different to HECS you were given, which you are expected to pay back for only if you so graciously start to work after uni.

      • +1

        This here is an example of you not knowing economic cost.

        Definition according to wiki:
        Economic cost is used mainly by economists as means to compare the prudence of one course of action with that of another.

        A number of studies have modelled that the benefit of providing subsidised child care exceeds the cost to the government. So why wouldn't they do it? One of these models was by KPMG back in 2020.

        TLDR - Greater funding for child care results in increased workforce participation, resulting in better outcomes for our economy.

  • +2

    My wife studies and needs time to get into the books. Also the kid learns social skills and other developmental things at daycare that we can't afford him at home cause we only have a single kid.

    Working from home with a kid is a nightmare.

  • +2

    Simply put, up until a certain age children require fairly constant care and attention. It is why Child care workers have strict ratios of kids to teachers. In a WFH situation I dont have 25-50% of a working day to dedicate to looking after my daughter and giving her the attention she deserves, at her age she is constantly learning and forming her view of the world. Letting her stare at a tablet playing wiggles/elmo for 7+hrs a day is not building the skills she should be learning at her age.

    I also have a team I work with and report too, I am required to be available during office hours to work with that team, I have people who depend on me and people who I depend on. Working outside of office hours only works if the rest of my team also works outside of office hours. So your suggestion is to let either my work or my daughters future development suffer because I am sitting at my house instead of my office?

    • -2

      In a WFH situation I dont have 25-50% of a working day to dedicate to looking after my daughter

      Neither do daycare workers, yet somehow they manage.

      • What do you mean, their job is to look after 4 children, so the minimum they dedicate to each child is 25% on any given day, so assuming that some children play together ie time overlap they likely dedicate more than 25% per child.

        Their job is to look after the child, their job responsibilities involve playing with/teaching/supervising children. This isn't something they do "on top of" their normal job, its literally the job description. They may do other things during the day in terms of paperwork, reporting etc but the majority of their job is focused on the children and the reason such strict child : teacher ratios exist is because of the attention required for children at a certain age.

  • Maybe people don't want their children to be socially stunted during their formative years.
    Especially since these parents will be paying/subsidizing childcare for the rest of their working lives, and have been doing this before they had children.

  • +1

    why they're paying for someone to take care of their kids while they're at home everyday anyway

    What a bs post. What do you think wfh means? If you have ever had to take care of a toddler while working from home 9-5 you would not even bother asking such a dumb question.

    And no I don’t want my kid watching tv all day while we can’t attend to him due to work.

  • +4

    With the amount of negative responses and explanation, if OP remains to think that he is right, no amount of further explanation can change his mind. He is obviously the minority and have a very naïve and close minded way of thinking and understanding problems. It is very apparent with the logic and arguments he have provided.

    OP's assumption is that taking care of a toddler (kids who goes to childcare) is a task that can be achieved whilst working from home. If this assumption is true, then yes there is no need for sending kids to childcare. But OP refuse and fails to re-examine his initial assumption.

    By the way he tackles and propose solution to problems, I would be surprise if his works involves solving "complex" problems as this is not a difficult problem to understand.

      • +1

        its about the balance of time,

        for a childcare worker they might be expected to spend 80% of a day with the child and 20% on administration. Divided by 4 children per worker and assuming no concurrent play between children (ie 2+ children playing together count as 1 instance of supervision) that is at a minimum 20% of the day dedicated entirely to a single child.

        So at a minimum I would be 20% less productive working from home with my child that I would be working from an office. Keeping in mind this is a minimal figure as each child would get a higher % of time based on the above play together/eat together situation.

        I am not sure my work would accept that I would instantly drop productivity by at least 20% likely closer to 40% when a simple option exists to avoid that situation.

      • +11

        I'm still yet to receive a fully justified answer on how daycare workers manage to take care of multiple kids at the same time (while also doing administrative duties) yet it's humanly impossible for parents to take care of 1 kid while WFH.

        Again, it is impossible to justify to you when you have a closed mind. Let me try this.

        • Firstly lets set the boundary condition. A child that goes to childcare are typically age 1-5. So we can establish that they are not capable of taking care of themselves.

        • A toddler requires adult to watch over them approx every 10 seconds. A childcare worker can watch over 4 kids if the worker is next to the children. Although it is not necessary for them to interact directly with each of the children.

        • A childcare is a place/environment specifically and professionally setup to take care of children. There are activities and toys to keep toddler busy not to mention peers (kids) that keeps each other busy. Hence the need for direct interaction with the childcare worker reduces.

        • There are multiple childcare worker in a childcare to help out with task and "scale". E.g 2 childcare worker taking care of 8 child. So when one of the child soils himself and needed full attention of a childcare worker, the other can watchover the 7 that is still in the room. Again going back to point 1, childcare worker do not necessarily need to step in, and are mostly watching over the kids to ensure they are safe.

        • Parents working from home does not mean they are able to take care of a child during the work hours. Most of the comments above have made it abundance clear that their work requires their constant (hours long) attention. So if for example a client calls, and you need to be in the meeting for 1-2 hours, there is no leeway to "walk away" to take care of the kid if they are in need. Furthermore, there is no way to keep watch (every 10seconds) of a kid when you are performing professional task. At least not to the quality expected of most professionals. To put it to something you can relate, from your previous post you seem to be some one who enjoys gaming on console. Now try playing a game where you have to pause every 10 seconds for 1 sec and resume. Tell me would you feel and how does that impact your gameplay.

        • There will always be outliers in this situation. There are people who only needs to put in 10 hours of work in a work week. You sound like one of them. But for majority of people, a 40 hours work week means 40hours at tasks.

        • Taking care of a kid is entirely different to taking care of a pet dog. I have both and can confidently say they are completely different. A dog is happy to sleep for hours if their essentials are met. Even if they are a sick dog, take a log of the amount of hours you need to attend to it, and then compare to a parents attending to a toddler.

        Or, if a child requires 100% undivided attention, how are people allowed to drive with their kids in the car? Obviously there's a few leaps of logic there. It's almost as if humans are capable of multi-tasking but simply don't want to take care of their own kids because "why should I have to".

        When driving, a child is strapped into a car seat and have limited action they can perform and hence interference from an adult during a car drive is minimal. Driving and working for many people are completely different task. While driving you can listen to music, you can have a conversation with the passenger. Try talking to some one when you are writing a technical report, or coding. Or to put to to something you can relate, try playing a very intensive game and conversing casually with someone. It is not difficult to think through the scenarios here!

        Taking care of a child does not require 100% undivided attention, but working does for the most of us.

        If the work you are doing is as simple as driving a car, then kudos to you, you most definitely should take care of your child while working from home. For the most of us, work is a lot more complex and require close to 100% undivided attention.

        • +2

          Kudos to you for trying, really, but logic and common sense obviously has no place for it in OP's brain. Reading all the replies, OP has a weird mix of comprehension and ignorance issues, topped off with a generous side of trolling I suspect.

  • +4

    I think you might be the one that needs childcare SlavOz . Your posts/arguments SlavOz come across as very childish and immature.

    You might want to ask mummy to proof read them before you post. Time for grown up to help you. You certainly need help.

  • +3

    Another my tax dollars are paying for your blah blah blah post

  • +6

    If parents could look after kids while working from home, then they should be able to work in the office with kids with them.
    Gee, I wonder why that hasn't taken off?

  • OP will home school

    • +6

      Hopefully he doesn't breed

      • woah…. he can breed just don't spend taxpayer's dollars

        • +2

          If you'd read through his other posts/comments, you'd understand my comment

Login or Join to leave a comment