Should Maternity Leave Be Paid for 12 Months?

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

Related Stores

Services Australia
Services Australia

Comments

    • +4

      I don't think maternity leave makes a big difference in a woman's decision to have a baby. Birth rates are on the decline to the point where Australia can't even sustain itself. We will go extinct at this rate.

      Something isn't working. Having children seems to be more of a cultural thing rather than a financial one. It's been framed as the 'uncool' and restrictive path for a woman to take, as opposed to her single and empowered counterpart who ends up alone at 40 with nothing but a career.

      We need to bring back family values to increase birth rates. As for the financial side, lowering taxes and empowering households to become more independent through free-market policies might help.

      • +2

        Kids are very expensive, especially if you want them to have the best opportunities in life etc

        So two kids kind of becomes the default for most people, unless you're wealthy (or strangely enough poor).

        Maybe we need to incentivise three kids somehow.

        • +3

          the best opportunities in life

          There's the problem. People use their kids as a competition and want to make sure they get the best of everything.

          There's no shame in having kids knowing you won't be able to give them the absolute best. Maybe they'll always be lower class slumdogs who never got a shot at becoming rich or famous. Who cares. As long as they have 2 loving parents, a roof, and food on the table, it's a life worth creating.

          • +2

            @SlavOz: It's not a competition, or about them becoming rich and famous…

            But you want to give them opportunities to develop and grow as a little human.

            Learn to swim, learn a few sports, learn to play an instrument, learn some martial arts, have interesting holidays and other experiences etc none of that shit is free

            • +2

              @trapper: None of that shit is necessary either. Kids don't need it.

              Like I said, you'd much rather have 2 loving parents who can't afford holidays than 1 super rich parent who takes you to Disneyland every month.

              Kids need emotional support more than anything else. The only reason we're so obsessed with giving them tangible items is because parents have become too lazy to invest actual quality time with their kids. Just give them an iPad and bring them along on the holidays which the parents usually do for themselves anyway.

              • +1

                @SlavOz: It's not one or the other lol

                You can give your kids emotional support for free, but a lot of things they also need cost money.

                Including things like food, and a roof over their head - that you can't so easily dismiss as unnecessary.

            • -1

              @trapper:

              none of that shit is free

              It can be, just need to use your imagination/creativity.

      • -1

        A lot of women make decisions based on maternity leave allowance.

        • +1

          If your decision to have kids is based entirely on maternity leave allowance then you should not have kids.

          • @buckethat: No, not really, but for a few months you need to be able to afford things including bills and food.

            Growing up in a poor situation means parents are always stressed out trying to provide the basics.

            Maybe everyone here is so rich, that you don't know this reality.

            For the people that think kids are not necessary, who will be paying for tax when you are old? Building things? Medical research? Cleaning your bum when you no longer can do it?

            • @Cookiescream: Definitely didn't grow up rich, still not rich either but definitely comfortable. Grew up with single mum who got taken advantage of when she immigrated to Australia by people of her own origin, paid her $4/hour back in mid 2000s. So I'd like to think I understand this 'reality'.

              If you want to have kids, the burden shouldnt be on your employer. You should be financially stable enough to support that decision. If your whole decision of whether or not to bring life into this world is based on maternity leave allowance, dont have kids.

              Though I do agree with government incentives to encourage population growth.

    • healthy population growth

      This is an oxymoron due to various systemic issues. We may either have to choose to stabilise or grow perpetually to eventually collapse to the stabilisation rate.

    • +4

      The world is already overpopulated. In the long term, 7 billion people living 1st world lifestyles with cars and heating and air conditioning and animal product heavy diets simply isn't sustainable. Look at the size of rubbish dumps now and imagine just how much land they will consume by 2200. Infinite growth on a finite planet is going to end in disaster.

      We should start with a mandatory, worldwide 1 child policy. Sterilize low IQ people. Instead of paid maternity leave, levy heavy sin taxes on those having more than 1 child.

      • Sterilize low IQ people

        aka, eugenics?

      • -1

        Sterilize low IQ people.

        Famous last words lol

      • Are you for real? ( Thaal)

      • Off you go. Get in your tent or mud shack, cook your dinner over coal or dung and get your local medicine man/woman to sterilise you. It’s the only way to save the planet!

  • +22

    The government has some of the cushiest maternity leave policies going and guess what, they have massive problems with staff. The amount of maternity leave contractors we had going at any one time was astounding. You could almost time it from the day they started to the day they qualified for mat leave.

    They'd end up hiring a full timer
    They'd wait their 2 years
    pop out a baby
    They'd then have to higher a 12 month temp contractor (whilst paying the full timer)
    Original hire then comes back after x months only to pop out another baby 9/12 months later.
    Everyone else ended up getting screwed over covering for them and retraining temps.. Unfortunately female dominated industries (health, teaching etc.) all have massive issues with it.
    From memory they had options where you could take full pay for 3 months, half pay for 6 months or quarter pay for 12 months on top of what the government would give you.

    I mean don't get me wrong, if i was a woman i'd be doing the same thing. But in some ways is causes more harm than good, especially if you're trying to manage workers/working with them. I couldn't imagine operating a small business in this environment.

    • +14

      and then they wonder why some employers discriminate based on sex..

      • +22

        Don't get me started on the gender pay gap
        So if females are paid less wouldnt it be in every companies interest to only get females in as they'd make them more money?

        • +17

          that's the problem, you're trying to use logic against those who are immune to it

        • -5

          The gender pay gap isn't about women all being cheaper to employ. It's about lifetime earnings and not being in the workforce consistently. It's the lower super. It's the missed hours dealing with carers responsibilities. The reduced hours contracts like part-time because commitment can't be given across the same span of hours. It's about governments perpetuating women as main carers and with more financial and job security parental rights. It's about women being more prominent in industries that have less ability or care for flexible work arrangements. It's about women in lower paid and lower skilled jos. It's about a lot of things but you can't deny the gap, once you read into the stats.

          • +3

            @cookie2: Not called a "pay gap" then though is it, it's something else

            • +2

              @Scantu: its racism fashoo yadiggg

          • +2

            @cookie2: So its the mother pay gap.

            Although they never seem to bring this up when talking about it.
            It's always girls vs guys.

            Now that guys can take paternity leave i'd like to see where the debate goes.

          • +8

            @cookie2:

            The gender pay gap isn't about women all being cheaper to employ. It's about lifetime earnings…

            lol a difference in lifetime earnings isn't a 'pay gap'.

            If you work less in your lifetime how can you expect the same lifetime earnings.

            • +2

              @trapper: Shh
              you're poking major holes in their argument

              • +2

                @Drakesy: Who's poking what? I believe this is why we're having this discussion!

      • +1

        Based on statistics alone, it doesn't make much sense to hire males either. They're like 94% more likely to die at work, which is never fun for an employer. Then factor in the prevalence of injuries and sicknesses that are almost always more common among men. The data suggests that men should be a massive strain on employers too but this is far from the case. Men make most of the money in the economy.

        I think it's less about biology/health and more about men not being such pussies.

    • +8

      Almost every working woman I know with > 1 kid has basically done this. Get pregnant timed with being able to take the companies paid maternity leave if they weren't already eligible, take maternity leave, come back, work for about 4-5 months until they'd be eligible for maternity leave again, take maternity leave, rinse and repeat for as many kids as they're going to have, then after the maternity leave of their last kid ends, quit the job to take care of their kids fulltime.

      It's a tough one because maternity leave is a good thing, but at the same time it's massively "abused". If I was running my own business it would be hard not to discriminate against child bearing age women because it would cost me a fortune.

      • It's a rort, isn't it, Mr Novelty Socks? So scammy!

      • +1

        quit the job to take care of their kids fulltime

        and then child support business continues

      • +1

        Hi, my name is Laurana and now you know me. I'm a mother of 3.

        Baby 1, I took 6 weeks of government paid leave and went back to work full time (work needed me). Employer did not offer any paid maternity leave and didn't even replace my role since I was literally gone for 6 weeks.

        Baby 2 was with the same employer. I was off for 5 months. Work paid for a temp for that time and government paid for my time off work.

        Baby 3 I was with a different employer with no paid leave, and I took 10 months off work.

        In the last two scenarios I did the training of my replacement myself and had to clean up their mess when I got back from leave. Work didn't pay any extra cash from my being gone. So no, not everyone abuses the system. I finish having kids at age 30 which is where I moved to a company that offers 14 weeks of paid mat leave at full paid. I could have had several more kids and 'abuse' the system, but I didn't because most people don't make life long decisions based on 3 months of pay to look after a newborn (not really a holiday).

        As I mentioned earlier, my current employer pays for 14 weeks of parental leave and we have experienced some people having baby 1, taking mat leave for a year, working for a year and then having baby 2, rinse and repeat. However, at the end they don't quit, so far they have all come back to work. Some full time, others part time. Like with everything in life, some people will abuse the system (this happens with any type of government payments) but that shouldn't stop us from helping those that need it.

        • So no, not everyone abuses the system

          No one ever said that everyone abuses the system.

          • +1

            @MrFunSocks: You said it was massively abused, and I disagreed with the word “massively”. Out of everyone I know (sample size of 10+, fyi) not one person has abused it despite having multiple children/opportunities.

            • @Laurana: And out of my sample size of also 10+, pretty much every single one has. Not a single woman that has had a kid at my work has returned to work, unless they had multiple kids in which case they returned for a few months before taking maternity again, never to come back.

              Again, you said "not everyone abuses it", and I agree because I never said that everyone did.

    • +3

      this is correct.

      I have previously worked in a NSW state govt organisation where the majority of the workforce was female. I have witnessed exactly this.

    • +1

      What do you suggest as an alternative? People are still going to have babies and have time off whether you pay them or not. Are you suggesting women should lose their job when they have a baby to avoid needing to hire a replacement temporarily? Sure it’s hard for the organisation but the alternative is not having women in the workplace, or at least to a far lesser extent - that sounds pretty archaic to me.

      • The alternative is to accept this reality, and stop trying to fix the (perceived) gap

        • +2

          The reality is what Drakesy already described. He was saying he had a problem with the current system/reality within govt departments.

          I've accepted reality. I got my 14 weeks full paid maternity leave from my employer as well another 14 minimum wage from the government. To be fair though I paid taxes for 20 years prior to that 15 years of which working full time and paying a decent whack of tax.

          It sounds like you're the one who hasn't accepted reality as reality is that parental leave exists and it's very unlikely to go away. Women will be allowed to go and have babies, keep their job and then come back.

    • -1

      As a gov employee for a long time this is complete bs and there's no more people having babies around here than there are in other industries.

      • Must be in a very different department.
        It's a huge problem in health and teaching

        • Teaching and Nursing are both female dominated areas. Wouldnt surprise me if they notice people going on mat leave more often.

          Unfortunately its a fact of life. Women will want to have babies.

          • @mavis30551: Yep, it's just unfortunate though when due to your industry leading mat leave policies people inevitably take advantage of it and their staffing is a shambles because of it.

  • +16

    Parent here, but the flipside of the coin is shouldn't everyone just be entitled to a years paid leave? Some people can't have kids, don't want kids, etc etc. Something you can claim only a certain number of times, regardless of whether it's for a kid or not

    • +6

      This is an interesting thought process and something that I, as a woman who doesn’t think she’ll ever have kids, possibly would have agreed with a couple of years ago.

      The argument against this is the parent is taking time off to raise the child that will pay taxes in 18 years to help fund these kinds of initiatives.

      As much as I would love a paid year off, it would be spent completely differently than someone who is using the time to raise a child.

      (Though possibly I would spend more money in the economy due to my extra time so who knows how this actually plays out)

      • Could raise the superannuation preservation age by the amount of such leave taken (to encourage staying in the workforce longer to make up that time)?

    • +6

      Absolutely agree. If you get the snip and don't have children, and don't plan to adopt, you should totally get 12 months leave.

    • +1

      I do agree. I guess that’s kind of what long service leave is. The reason there are incentives is that it’s in society’s interest for people to have babies, or at least that’s the thinking right now. Definitely sucky for people who can’t have kids, but as you know as a parent, it’s not like you’re chilling all the time you have ‘off’ with kids.

      • +3

        The reason there are incentives is that it’s in society’s the economy's interest for people to have babies, or at least that’s the thinking right now.

        Fixed that for you.

        How people have been convinced that having two working parents is a good thing is really a sad indication of the current population's priorities.

        • Its more the financial pressures of everyday living and property thats forced this.
          Not so much society
          Same happened in japan
          10-12 hour days were normalised
          Both parents would work
          No one had time to date
          Birth rate is now negative

    • +3

      Just remove all of these special reasons for leave (sick, personal, carers, maternity, paternity, annual, long service, bereavement etc etc etc) and allocate everyone the same amount of total leave to be used however and whenever the individual decided.

      Much easier to administer and much more flexible for the individual.

    • the flipside of the coin is shouldn't everyone just be entitled to a years paid leave?

      Sure, but you would have to spend that year being a fulltime carer to some kids obviously.

  • +4

    Now I'm not a 'believer in a Gender pay gap

    I do believe there is a life time 'earnings gap' between the two sexes

    … Now, I know there is a lot more complexity to the gender pay gap, but you hit the headline issue on the head.

    Maybe you are a believer, but just don't know it yet

  • if you cant afford to raise a kid without a job for a while then do not get one! (or five).

    some people are on public transport with their 5 kids, obviously cant afford a car, and still renting 2 beds apartment.
    well, thanks to centrelink, i guess ?

    • +7

      public transport with their 5 kids, obviously cant afford a car

      So catching public transport with kids means you can't afford a car?
      Holy generalisations Batman…….

  • What does the OzBargain community think?

    TL.DR

  • +15

    The 'article' you refer you is just a poorly thought-out opinion piece.
    The author seems to feel that any difference in pay between the sexes can only be attributable to systemic discrimination - and cannot have anything to do with life choices.
    I have seen many stories about the gender pay gap - but I have never seen a single article about the gender workplace death gap… I wonder why that is?

    • -2

      gender workplace death gap

      Sounds like more of a WHS and workplace culture issue. Shouldnt be aiming for equality, should be aiming for 0 for everyone.

    • +3

      Yep, it’s the usual typical trash you read from a Murdoch publication. It’s just a rant based on some very questionable analyses.

      Everytime I see something about the gender pay gap the analysis is based on averages. It mentions in the article the biggest gap is in WA. That’s probably because there are high paying mining jobs there like in mining (and guess what gender would dominate this workforce?)

      More women work in low paying jobs like hospitality and retail which of course would pull down any “average” you look at.

      If the author is gonna complain about a pay gap they should analyse by job title, location, experience etc. not take an average. The entire article is just plain bad. If someone wants to argue their point at least do some good research first based on stats that aren’t what a 12 year old would think of looking at.

      • +2

        There’s definitely logic behind looking into averages, but this article does bugger all to explore the real problems.

        Even during child’s play, little girls are taught to be careful and kind and nurturing and little boys are taught to explore and fix and lead.

        There’s societal reasons and gender stereotypes at play from day 1 that lead to why women end up in the lower paying jobs and men end up in the higher paying jobs.

        I have friends with baby girls and when they dress them up in “boy colours” strangers talk to them differently.

        This is what we need to change.

        If the author is gonna complain about a pay gap they should analyse by job title, location, experience etc. not take an average.

        I can say for absolute certain that I have worked in companies where men are getting paid more for doing the exact same work. This is comparing two grads that started at a company at the exact same time and where they are now 3 years later. The men were often earning $10k+ more, despite the attempts by the women to fight for more pay for themselves.

        The authors point about talking about pay within a company is very important and will definitely help address this.

        • +1

          There’s definitely logic behind looking into averages, but this article does bugger all to explore the real problems.

          Averages make sense depending on the context in which they're used, but you can't just use averages throughout an article and assert it's the objective truth.

          This is what we need to change.

          I would say that makes sense. Being a good parent is extremely important to developing well-rounded, successful children. I would say part of being a good parent is not to place limits on your children like how you describe (e.g. girls should be taught to fix and lead, boys should be taught to be careful and kind).

          I can say for absolute certain that I have worked in companies where men are getting paid more for doing the exact same work. This is comparing two grads that started at a company at the exact same time and where they are now 3 years later. The men were often earning $10k+ more, despite the attempts by the women to fight for more pay for themselves.

          Interesting. So these women actually tried to negotiate for an equal pay but were rejected? Could it have been based on performance or was it due to straight up human bias?

          Human emotion still plays a massive role in business sadly. It doesn't matter how hard one works or how much good work a person can do, if the boss doesn't like you for some biased reason (e.g. racism, sex, your sense of humour, the way you dress etc.) you're gonna know it. Whereas your workmate who comes into work and makes everyone laugh but does average work will probably get that promotion or pay rise.

          I probably shouldn't assert that a gender pay gap doesn't exist, it's likely not binary, but every article I read about it looks at vague averages. The one the OP linked is just a bad article in general.

          • +2

            @Ghost47:

            So these women actually tried to negotiate for an equal pay but were rejected?

            Yes. These women (this occurred to a few different women over several years at a few different companies) spoke to other people to find out what pay everyone else was on. They also spoke to friends at other firms to find out market rates for similar roles. They went to their bosses with the information, told them what they were worth and were rejected. The common reason was “there’s no money left in the budget to negotiate.”

            It was absolutely bias, as somehow there was always money in the budget for the men who did the same. Even men who I worked with who were awful at their jobs. (I would never recommend them to anyone).

            In one of the examples, the woman’s male boss definitely thought she was great at what she did. After she tried to negotiate and got nowhere, she left the company for a competitor. Miraculously the pay was available then, they begged her to stay. But it was too late. She was also integral in organising social events and keeping morale up amongst her peers.

            I think that particular company never expected women to leave. Interestingly, they have very few women employed there now.

            • +1

              @jjjaar: Wow, I see. That’s pretty bad. Good on that person for leaving, the boss sounds toxic.

              If a gender pay gap does exist and stories like yours are more of a norm rather than exception then articles like what’s linked in the OP only fuels people like myself (who are skeptical to the existence of a gender pay gap) to not believe them.

              There are probably studies out there that I haven’t read that are much more in-depth than just looking at averages. I feel like it’s very easy to look at one statistic across the board (without looking at others like the median), assume it’s the truth when a more thorough analysis would paint a better picture of the situation.

            • +1

              @jjjaar: I've seen this in the corporate world too. The comment of "company never expected women to leave" rings so true.

    • +1

      Plot twist, even the lifestyle choices are evidence of systemic discrimination.

      /S

      In all honesty the best retort I have to this idea is that there's a reason I'm not a hairdresser or an interior decorator, and it's not because there's some secret or not-so-secret cabal which is conspiring to manipulate me away from these endeavours …

  • +5

    I feel like you're not going to get a very unbiased poll since most of this community are male.

    • Intrigued. What percentage are we talking here? Never considered that.

      • +5

        Probably 30% of people on Ozb are 35year old IT working Asian males the next 30% is a variation on the initial bunch and the remaining is split between weird rich boomers who just want to watch the world burn and butt poor people.

        • +2

          Not sure where I fit here - needs a poll.

          • @morse: Yes, poll essential, though I'm not sure how ill answer if these are the options. LoL. I never considered the gender variance on ozb. I knew there was an Asian lean now from some discussions I've seen but yeah. In saying that I've never had another person of either sex ever say to me "hey, you use Ozbargain", without me being the first to introduce the topic.

            • @cookie2: I thought it was relatively well known that it’s majority male. I’m also not sure if men are more likely to be active in forums or vice versa.

              There’s an comment here from Scotty re this:
              https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/8018847/redir

              Whilst a poll would be cool it would be tricky as I don’t think it’s well set up for multiple variables.

              • @morse: Thanks, I think I might have seen that when it was posted. But I wanted more. :) So now the question is, does this mean that men are better bargain hunters than women. All this time, such hidden manskills that have been kept secret from the opposite sex.

        • Damn I’m 34 year old Asian male , just missing the IT part.

    • +1

      I feel like you're not going to get a very unbiased poll since most of this community are male.

      And why would a male be more biased than a female? what a sexist comment.

      • -1

        Wait till they hear that there might be a correlation between the gender of members of a site that saves money and the gender of the population that have decent savings.

        Cue the outrage.
        If you're careful with money who would've thought you'd be richer.

        I can confirm that my female friends are not as financially savvy as my male friends.

  • +10

    Ideally both parents would get 6 months so they can share the load and the female can get back into the workforce sooner. Ironically the gender pay gap party comes from males not being entitled to as much leave.

    • +1

      Exactly this. How can we change it even the work rights are different? I always believed this wouldve been changed 10 years ago so it's crazy it's still so behind. I wonder where other countries are in relation to materity vs paternity leave allowances. Something for me to spend a good chunk of work time tomorrow checking.

      • +3

        I would suggest start by looking up the Scandinavian gender equality paradox.

        Basically, the Nordic countries took out every imaginable social barrier when it comes to the decisions of men and women. So they encouraged more women to focus on high paying jobs while encouraging men to take time off for families. I believe they also had a paid parental leave scheme for men.

        Obviously the idea was to reverse "systemic" influences which they thought were behind women being home makers. What they found was that things actually went the opposite direction. Women were still deciding to take time off for their kids, men were not as interested, and the gender difference in certain fields did not really change.

    • +2

      It should just be 12 months per birth (so 12 months for 1, twins, triplets) to be split amongst parents however best works for them.

      As I’ve said below, allowing a male to be the primary carer is just as important for equality as allowing a woman to return to work sooner. But it needs to be what’s right for each set of parents at that point in time.

      • If you make it 12 months per birth then (profanity) employers and men stuck in the 1950s are just going to force the woman to take all 12 months. Better if you get 6+6 which you can use in different ways (e.g. both working half time for a year).

        • Sure that might happen. And that’s an awful outcome.

          But what happens if the woman works and the man doesn’t? Or if her job is more demanding and his isn’t? Or if he just wants to be a stay at home dad. Should she be forced to take 6 months off, and should he be forced to work for 6 months just because 6+6 is, on paper, “fair”.

          Equality is about providing people with choice and flexibility.

  • +6

    I don't believe that anyone should be entitled to paid maternity leave, if you decide to have children then you need to budget for the time you want to have off work. There are lots of families that never had the option of paid maternity leave but still managed.

    • +4

      If there are wasn’t paid parental leave and childcare subsidies people wouldn’t have kids because it’s ridiculously expensive and not affordable for many. It stuffs the economy if people don’t have kids. If only the people who could afford kids had them we’d a) have greater disadvantage and inequality for those struggling financially b) have a lower birth rate c) have to rely on migration much more heavily for our workforce, which is proving challenging as it is.

      • +5

        The thing is, we already rely on net overseas migration to boost our numbers.

        In 2009, Australia’s population grew by two per cent with Net Overseas Migration (NOM) accounting for 64 per cent of this growth and natural increase (births minus deaths) contributing 36 per cent. Migration flows are therefore a key factor contributing to population growth. And this was 13 years ago! So have things changed? Well, all you need to do is go out on the street in Sydney or Melbourne (or any other capital city in Aus probably) and you'll see a lot more Indians and Chinese around. (I have no issue with this as I do love a good chicken biryani and kung pao chicken, and we all know Asians are hard workers — something this country needs more of cough Scott Morrison cough.)

        Interestingly, what you're saying about inequality is happening already. Why?

        Because I would say Aussies, i.e. people who have lived here for a while and didn't just come from India or China (or even some developed English-speaking country like Canada or the US) are quite clued in to how much it costs to live here. People from overseas probably come here and realise "sh_t, houses are actually pretty damn expensive here! Why didn't we think about this first before moving our butts 10,000 km away from where our families and friends are?" It's anecdotal but I know people who came here from overseas and are in their late 30s and 40s and are struggling to buy in Sydney. I have not asked them "Did you even think about that before you moved here dummy?" because they'd probably get me fired.

        Our housing prices are — IMO — completely ridiculous and it leads to people forgoing kids or waiting till they're older to have kids because they're saving for a house. That article also mentions that homeowners (well, people in massive amounts of debt) are more likely to have kids than non-homeowners. So the inequality is already here.

        Here's a more recent article about NOM to Australia. Look at that chart lmao. Look at what is dictating growth. Natural increase is flat, "unnatural increase" (aka importing bodies to boost productivity because Jack has to knock off at 3pm on a Friday to haul his beer belly to the NRL game) has dived and this has resulted in overall growth diving as well. We can see that the unnatural increase has increased more recently and it's clearly dictated total growth.

        Aussies who actually think about their future, and the future they can provide for their [potential future] children, are going to factor in housing security in their decision making (Aussies who can't think more than 12 months out will continue to pop out babies like idiots.) And since housing security is quickly deteriorating in this country, we are now finding ourselves in a situation where we have to rely on importing more Kumars, Sharmas, Agrawals, Wangs, Lis and Chus into the country to boost our economy instead of hoping Stacy and Ben renting Peter's run-down 1 bedroom apartment that is way overdue for a renovation in Sydney for $700 a week will pop out their first baby.

        • +1

          People from overseas probably come here and realise "sh_t, houses are actually pretty damn expensive here! Why didn't we think about this first before moving our butts 10,000 km away from where our families and friends are?"

          i worked with a guy from Pakistan, his original plan was to move here with his wife, but after living here for a while, getting (profanity) over by the government (last time i spoke to him his permanent residency / visa application had been sitting for 12 months overdue) and seeing how expensive everything here is, he decided that he's going to work hard here for 10 - 15 years and move back to Pakistan to live like a king, because the amount of money he could earn working here, which would probably be equivalent to a deposit on a small house or apartment, could set him up for life over there.

          he was also considering trying again with Canada, but i think they aren't much better off than we are, or possibly even worse.

          • +1

            @[Deactivated]: I'll be interested to see if he actually follows through. When I was at uni I spoke to international students who said they would move back after they finished their degree but ended up staying (because we all know international students use higher education as a gateway to live here).

            But I'm glad he woke up, Australia is probably made out to look like an oasis in a desert to people from overseas. They just don't realise how hard they will have to work (although inversely related to their luck) to have a decent life here if they're starting on the back foot. I think migrants who came here a while back, maybe 10-20 years back are fine, it's mainly new migrants.

            I know a guy who came from Canada a few years ago and I always wonder to myself why he moved. I can't imagine Australia being much different to Canada besides the climate, but we can all see where that's heading with climate change anyway. Fires and floods will become the norm here.

            • +1

              @Ghost47: he actually did go back, i'm not sure if it's permanent, but he quit his job and sold his cars.

              • -3

                @[Deactivated]: I'd rather be homeless here than living in Pakistan like a king lol

    • So I'm sure you support urgent action to fix flatlining wages and insane property prices so that people can actually "budget" as you suggest while actually biologically able to have kids?

  • +15

    Maternity Leave

    Dont descriminate. Its Parental leave. And yes parental leave should be 12 months.

    • +4

      Spot on.

      This is the key way to providing equality. For both genders.

      For women so they can work if they want.
      For men so they can be the primary carers if they want.

    • Super agree!

  • Lolzzz this is unli income for Bankstown mum 😂

  • I think young ones of today get it too easy.

  • +3

    We need "positive discrimination" to fix this gender pay gap. As you mention, the pay gap is partly caused by women working less hours over their career due to caring for their children, rather than different hourly rates of pay. Another consideration is not just the lost hours but the career progression opportunities that are missed during this time away from work. To counter this we should legislate 12 months paid leave only for men who stay at home to care for their child. This will encourage more men to do the heavy lifting of raising the children and give women the chance to earn more, both wages and super, and advance their careers to more higher paying specialist/management roles. This would not only help with reducing the lifetime earnings gap that currently exists but also the gap in company executive/board member representation.

    • Then they'd just find something else to complain about.

    • +2

      Way too much logic here.

      Women miss out on valuable working time because they have kids.

      Solution: give men more time off so they will look after the kids, don't give women time off because they need the extra time at work to catch up in lifetime earnings.

      Runs from the mob with pitchforks

      • Wait until some feminist comes up with the idea of trying to force men to give birth! 😂

Login or Join to leave a comment