The Forum > Article Comments > A second letter to the Prime Minister > Comments
A second letter to the Prime Minister : Comments
By Babette Francis, published 8/5/2014You are to be commended for modifying your Paid Parental Leave policy, but it is still grossly discriminatory both as between career women and as against the full-time homemaker mother
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
-
- All
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 9 May 2014 1:08:48 PM
| |
Nice attempt at a twist, Yuyutsu.
>>Show me anyone who has elected to "go out to work" for patriotic "do it for Australia's future" reasons, and I'll show you a fibber.<< Nowhere did I suggest such a thing. Mostly, they go to work because a) they have to, to stay alive or b) in order to improve their standard of living. But there are benefits to the nation as a whole when they do. >>Those who work already receive salary/wages/income for their effort - why should the tax-payer give them more?<< If you think about it, instead of instinctively pounding your keyboard in disapproval, the main beneficiary of the taxpayer's contribution is the childcare industry that employs thousands of people, and allows productive work to enhance the economy elsewhere at the same time. "Full-time homemaker mothers", on the other hand, do neither. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 9 May 2014 5:58:20 PM
| |
<<We could even grow food in the Sahara, using just sea water.>>
Rhosty, I suppose we could survive in dungeons eating cockroaches as well. People survive under the most appalling living conditions too. You see, merely being alive really isn't living is it ? And yes, we are overpopulating the planet, like it or not. had some sympathy with supporting new mothers Tristan ewins, How about supporting parents ? Now that does sound better doesn't it ? Posted by individual, Saturday, 10 May 2014 4:43:52 AM
| |
Good comments from rehctub and Yuyutsu.
Of course we could grow crops in the Sahara using sea water. We could farm the surface of the Moon, if we were prepared to put enough money and energy into it. It is the costs of doing so that make this a pie in the sky proposition. Desalination may be a financially viable proposition in a rich coastal city, but desalinated water costs 4 to 6 times as much as dam water, far too much to use it for agriculture, except for possibly growing some vegetables in greenhouses near the city. Once you get beyond the city, the costs escalate even more because water is heavy and pumping it up a gradient requires enormous amounts of energy and is very expensive. Even if we had a completely free, unlimited source of clean energy, if we kept increasing energy use at the current rate, we would end up cooking ourselves in a matter of a few centuries, just from the waste heat. The laws of thermodynamics rule OK. See this article by A/Prof Tom Murphy (Physics, University of California San Diego) http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ So far as Australia is concerned, big families are not a problem. Our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976. Every couple that has a large family is balanced by several others that have no children or only one. Our government is doing our overpopulating for us. This is actually one of the main causes of the problems Babette Francis is discussing. If housing were cheaper in the places where the jobs are and there was a tighter labour market, as in the 1960s and 70s, then mothers could afford to stay at home while their children were very small, without help (in most cases) from the taxpayer. Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 10 May 2014 4:23:21 PM
| |
Dear Pericles,
<<If you think about it, instead of instinctively pounding your keyboard in disapproval, the main beneficiary of the taxpayer's contribution is the childcare industry that employs thousands of people, and allows productive work to enhance the economy elsewhere at the same time.>> So some women want to be mothers, other women want to work in childcare and you just want to enhance the economy. Do what you like, but why do I have to foot the bill through my taxes? Some people also like to have pets - are you suggesting that tax-payer should subsidise either (or both) the pet owners or the pet-grooming industry, on the grounds that it enhances the economy? When I want things, I pay for them myself! Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 10 May 2014 10:16:16 PM
| |
I think you're missing the point, Yuyutsu.
>>So some women want to be mothers, other women want to work in childcare and you just want to enhance the economy. Do what you like, but why do I have to foot the bill through my taxes?<< It is not me, but the government that wants to enhance the economy - my own preferences are irrelevant, as are yours. We elect a government to (theoretically) employ our taxes in a manner that benefits the economy, which in turn benefits all of us. You "foot the bill", as you call it, because you are a taxpaying citizen. If you voted for a candidate who was standing on a platform that included a "no tax" clause, and that candidate was defeated by someone who was in favour of taxation, then you missed out, I'm afraid. That's democracy for you. Full of disappointment. >>Some people also like to have pets - are you suggesting that tax-payer should subsidise either (or both) the pet owners or the pet-grooming industry, on the grounds that it enhances the economy?<< If those pets were going to grow up into productive members of the community and future taxpayers, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. But they aren't. So it isn't. >>When I want things, I pay for them myself!<< Of course you do. You are an autodidact, you build your own roads, take away your own garbage, surgically remove your own appendix and defend yourself with your very own F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Good for you. Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 11 May 2014 1:19:33 AM
|
<<We could even grow food in the Sahara, using just sea water.>>
Yes, from a technical perspective we could.
But it comes at a price:
First, this requires an ever-increasing dependence on technology, such high-technology that cannot be produced locally. This implies dependence on the rest of the world and capitulation to any demands made from across the oceans. Second, density itself requires increasing regulations and standardisations so that more people can live along on the same area without stepping on each others' toes. The combined effect is of turning people into numbers and denying their expression of individuality and personal religion. One may have enough to eat, one may not feel heat or cold and one could have all the sophisticated gadgets in the world (in fact be required to have all those gadgets whether they like it or not), but not being able to live one's own way is poverty - and being told how to do things is slavery.
And where would it stop anyway? Young people, seeing that "everything is possible" would surely want to have their own kids. The Sahara may be inhabited, but there are only that many Saharas on the planet.
All that for what?
For giving more souls the chance of a human body? Souls can wait, they don't feel the time passing anyway, they don't need to come all at once!
<<And feed everyone on the planet, for less than a third of our military budgets!>>
Assuming you can make people trust each other - for which we know no precedent.
<<Yes sure, we as a species have overpopulated the planet, but Aussies are not the ones doing it!>>
Then bring others in. There are hundreds of millions people enthusiastically eager to come to Australia, you could even pick and choose, you could select for example those who are already educated and eager to work, or those who have natural talent and inclination for aged-care.
However, note the price. The GDP may increase along with the material standard of living, but the quality of life will suffer.