Weird, ours was able to get involved in much of that domestic work as a 2 year old. Even before they can play any active role, it's perfectly possible for parents (of either gender) to multitask and carry out domestic chores while simultaneously minding and entertaining children.unpaid domestic work is not "spending time with their children".
Refer who? As I was the most recent to quote you, I'll assume you meant me, but post #50 makes no sense in that context.Refer you back to post #50
Yes of course there is a value in spending time with your children. Though is there a need to spend 18 years? This discussion is primarily about choice and the consequences of this choice.Or ahead of 'what the Irish economy needs'. Many don't care that the exchequer probably wants them to work, get taxed, pay someone else to look after their children out of the net, with the carer also paying tax. Then consider the amount of care the child gets from sharing a care giver with N other children, versus N=1 on average, with a parent who takes on the job themselves.
Edit: There is a value to spending time with your kids for many people also that seems to be missing from this discussion.
My point on value is that, if you chose something you prefer and get a value from, then it can come at a cost. I don't think there is a need to spend 18 years from the child's perspective. But there is obviously a cost to being out of a career/training etc. for years and it's hard to go back at a lower level than ex-colleagues etc. or for people without specific training, going into e.g. retail to work with teenagers is hardly attactive as a parent of teenagers yourself.Yes of course there is a value in spending time with your children. Though is there a need to spend 18 years? This discussion is primarily about choice and the consequences of this choice.
To progress what you said on N=1. This is not always the case. Families where the children are close in age do not fall into that category. Likewise where there is only one child they need company. It is usually not viable for women to work as childcare/Gaeltact/summer camps are required even as the children grow older. You are correct in that skills diminish especially in Ireland where 67% of the population have third level education. I note that the women in Iceland went on a 24 hour strike even though they have the gold standard in parental leave.My point on value is that, if you chose something you prefer and get a value from, then it can come at a cost. I don't think there is a need to spend 18 years from the child's perspective. But there is obviously a cost to being out of a career/training etc. for years and it's hard to go back at a lower level than ex-colleagues etc. or for people without specific training, going into e.g. retail to work with teenagers is hardly attactive as a parent of teenagers yourself.
Is it a burden though? I’ve never seen it as a burden. I agree that those mothers can and frequently are disadvantaged from a work and career perspective but if they are then they share in their husbands/partners income. If they are divorced then the law supports them and rebalances things. I’m genuinely asking, I really don’t get the narrative that the parent who has the privilege of spending more time with their children should be financially compensated for having that privilege.The default is for the burden to fall on mothers and that’s why the participation rate is low for women.
If two people of the same ability work in the same job and have the same productivity levels is it not reasonable that the person who works longer should get paid more?The latest Nobel Laureate for Economics confirms the workplace structure of ‘longer hours = greater reward’ is at the heart of the issue.
This is the conclusion I also came to when the kids were younger. On a lower wage, the cost of childcare is not offset. On a higher wage, extra hours are taxed at a higher rate meaning household net income is the same PLUS you are paying others to raise your kids. And that's without mentioning the challenges of trying to align the school day / year/ holidays to a working day/year. The issue is structural. If you don't have family supports with free/flexible labour (I seriously miss having my mum close by!), then purely on financials, it makes sense to have one spouse at home.The tax system doesn’t encourage both parents to work. if I gave up my job my OH gets my tax credits and although we’d only have one income, in net terms that income is higher than his income when we both work. Take away childcare costs and some couples may be better off.
A friend recently went back to work following a 4 year break post her second child, her husband kept her tax credits. She had to get a second car to facilitate her commute, pay a minder and be gone from the house 4 days a week. She was bringing home pennies in net terms. She lasted all of 6 months.
In this country for 2 working parents with small children and childcare costs you need 2 very well paid jobs to be worthwhile both parents going out to work
I see you have strong views on these points @Purple from your earlier posts. At the risk of arguing semantics...Is it a burden though? I’ve never seen it as a burden. I agree that those mothers can and frequently are disadvantaged from a work and career perspective but if they are then they share in their husbands/partners income. If they are divorced then the law supports them and rebalances things. I’m genuinely asking, I really don’t get the narrative that the parent who has the privilege of spending more time with their children should be financially compensated for having that privilege.
If two people of the same ability work in the same job and have the same productivity levels is it not reasonable that the person who works longer should get paid more?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?