Wm Trevor,

Why choose 1850? How about we go back to 1750, before the the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It was the establishment of the mills that usurped cottage industry and herded all the country folk into new urban areas.

It was the new "work ethic" that confined small children in the mills, factories and mines. (Btw - Richard Arkwright was a decent chap - he had a policy of not employing anyone under 6 and anyone over 40).

Anyway...one day the powers that be noticed that they were undermining the health of the nation (and its future prospects) by exploiting the young to such an extent) so they began "schooling" en masse as a daycare cum conditioning institution.

So the beat goes on...now we have a situation where consumerism has such a hold that parents believe it is imperative that they consign their infants to "daycare" institutions as a matter of course. Our society is built around the tenet that to consume is glorious - and unless two parents are working, they cannot possibly have all the things that they require (desire).

Strangely enough, we always seem to be playing catch-up, nowadays the cost of house requires two parents to work, especially if they want all the other "stuff" on offer. What a crock we have been fed.

The institutionalisation of infants en masse is a dubious distinction indicative of a society that places the pursuit of excess way above the emotional and developmental well-being of its most vulnerable citizens.

Poirit
It is true that childcare is a new industry, and there is quite a lot of money involved, much of which comes from the taxpayer. In fact, the government seems quite excited about how much taxpayer funding is being spent, and how many children are now in daycare (or the more trendy term is “childcare”)

“Early childhood education and care funding has more than doubled, up from $1.7b in 2004-05 to $3.7b in 2008-09” There were more than 870,000 children using approved child care in the September quarter 2009, up 8 per cent since the September quarter 2005."

www.mychild.gov.au/documents/docs/StateChildCareAus.pdf

I would disagree slightly regards “now we have a situation where consumerism has such a hold that parents believe it is imperative that they consign their infants to "daycare" institutions as a matter of course.”

I would think the situation is now more of exploitation and extortion of the taxpayer.

If the woman does not want the baby, then the taxpayer has to fund the abortion.

If the woman wants a baby, then the taxpayer has to fund the baby bonus.

After the woman has the baby, then the taxpayer has to fund keeping the baby in the daycare center.

Most of this has come about from successive governments attempting to please women at election time, by trying to attract their vote with more and more taxpayer funding. This situation is likely to go on forever, because women are oppressed.

Or so we are told.

vanna,

Government funding of childcare is provided as an incentive to encourage women into the workforce, to keep the childcare "industry" ticking over - in short to keep the cash registers ringing.

Looking after your own children does nothing for GNP - paying someone else to do it helps GNP - and also allows families the opportunity to amass more disposable income. The problem here is that GNP only takes into account the quantitative outcomes and not those involving quality of life.

I know you want to blame all of this on women, however, it's a societal construct undertaken in the name of profit and growth - and one where many of the the female participants are often inducted as a matter of conformity or necessity.

Poirit
I think growth will eventually decline, while health care costs will soar.

More and more Australian industry is likely to go offshore, because the workforce in Australia is too unhealthy.

No one can run a business if 45% of the workforce are asthmatic, a large number have mental health problems and are possibly suicidal, a large number are alcoholic, and about 65% are obese and probably diabetic.

The taxpayer base is slowly shrinking with an ageing population, but at the other end, the number of suitable young workers is also shrinking because of ill health.

Instead of the $3.5 billion being paid outright to mothers to intern their children into daycare centers, the money could be paid only after the mother attends a course on child raising, and can demonstrate that she is actually carrying out recommended child raising practices.

Similar for the baby bonus.

vanna,

Suffice to say, that I think your idea of a course of child-raising is a load of bollocks,

I might add, however, that if society reverted to a more organic way of community organisation and collaboration, the mum's would then regain the broad support of their peers and elders to reinforce their maternal instincts.

Poirit
Well the greatest rort of all is the belief that women have “maternal instincts” and are caring and nurturing.

Its all prestige. A woman has to have a baby to prove to other women that she is a “real woman”.

But now we have come the full gamut, and the taxpayer has to pay the woman money to have a baby, and then pay the woman money to intern the child into a daycare center, so that someone else raises the child.

Of course the woman claims that it is “her” child.

And we are repeatedly beseeched with the propaganda term of “women and their children”.