luvwelly

I agree with you two but also with Jennifer...for me having a child (which I put off because I had a career) meant my career would have to go on the back burner for the sake of the child and my own desire to take care of it because it was my baby not anyone else's (except my OH's of course)....babies need ideally to be cared for by someone who actually has an emotional relationship with them so even 12 hour State funded daycare wouldn't persuade me to stay in the workforce while they are pre-school age.

UK Surveys have shown that many working parents with young kids would rather stay at home but can't afford to....even when kids are older and at school..I feel sorry for those who have to get up early in the school holidays and go to a Holiday Playscheme for several weeks of the holidays because their parents are at work...so even the solutions (such as they are) are not really perfect.
I don't think society is going to change anytime soon and given the increasing competition from the Third World (lower labour costs) think hankering after part-time work for both parents so you both get the best of both worlds is a long way away. I do know people in professions where they are in partnership and both work part-time and both share family duties/childrearing - these people have probably deliberately chosen these career options to facilitate this.
Looks ideal to me although I think being the main carer of a young baby is extremely rewarding in itself and getting over the strain of childbirth with several months away from work pressures is an excellent idea.

I suspect this will always be an issue each family has to decide for itself dipping into state/private childcare provision as they see fit, from year to year.

bourbon-biscuit

Luvwelly- I agree with you and in many ways with Jennifer to- long hours in childcare isn't good for families either.

luvwelly

In fact if the state wants to help, it would probably be better to recognise the value of the 'stay at home parent' to the community's social cohesion and harmony and reward this financially either in tax breaks for the family or even a nominal wage for staying at home with a young child and no loss of state pension rights (some provision already).
Seems anti-feminist but you can choose which parent works and which stays at home for awhile. I'm in a post-feminist stage anyway...I'm over 'having it all' and very much up for a happy family life.

Cape Blue

Alternatively you could wait until you are financially capable of having children rather than expecting other people to fund your choice.

bourbon-biscuit

Luvwelly- that, in a nutshell *is* modern feminism! Men and women should have the same choices and options available to them

You miss the point. Entirely.

southerner

What is more - as double income families have become more common that in turn has raised the buying power of the average household - average property prices then rise and it becomes really hard for those trying to survive on one income. It becomes economically self perpetuating that those without a really good single income, or not willing to make many sacrifices, will require both parents to work for much of their kids upbringing.

Cape Blue

I'm happy to be enlightened, I just find the idea that someone would expect the State to pay them for staying at home and having a child a little strange.

sr71

Some of the PC attitudes on here make me worry for the future of NZ.

I personally think that NZ is pretty real and down to earth.

southerner

Personally I think income splitting for tax purposes would be fair. At the moment we are way worse off compared to 2 income families on the same income.

bourbon-biscuit

I don't think anybody on here said that. What is being discussed is the current balance of 'brunt of unpaid childcare' landing with women by default and thus being reflected in their wage earning capacity, when children are the responsibility of men and women of society.

I would also find the idea that the state pay someone to stay at home and have a child strange (and foolhardy) but the tax, pension and work culture systems could be altered in favour of men, women and children, when the status quo disadvantages us all, but women particularly.

Cape Blue

Maybe I read Luvwelly's post wrongly

Cape Blue

I can see some sense in that

Cape Blue

I agree women bear the brunt of unpaid childcare which effects their earning capacity (amongst other choices) - the solution would be for their partners to be able to share in this load, if both chose to do so, preferably agreeing this before starting a family.

What my initial post was referring to was the assumption that women earning less was work-based sexism, which predominantly it is not.

jmh

Isn't that the famous kiwi laid back lifestyle

No, ok it was unprofessional

jennifer45

I know there is a strong women's rights movement in NZ but there seems to be little action looking into or addressing the injustices of women pensioners.

I am aware that the UK State pension is frozen until it reaches the level of the NZ Superannuation scheme. What did surprise me was that NZ women cannot get a pension in their own right if they are married- they automatically become part of a partnership.

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/man...ion_tables.htm

Having paid a hefty chunk (Full Stamp) of my salary all my working life I now find that is totally discounted and my husband and I will receive a married couple's superannuation, the same as any other married couple where the wife made a much smaller contribution to her pension through a married woman's stamp.
Maybe it's because it's a non-contributory State Benefit, but if men and women are treated equally in NZ, why isn't the superannuation benefit paid to the woman? She could then give half to her husband/partner each fortnight [provided he'd behaved himself!]

Back to the issue of the state paying an allowance to mothers + numerous other benefits for having children.
That already happens in the UK and look what a mess we have made for ourselves.
Teenage mum's multiple pregnancies, absent fathers- dysfunctional families with over 10 children neither of parents working, but having an income + benefits from the state that is far in excess of what a young couple with 2.4 children could ever hope to earn. Sometimes [nay often] these children are raised in a family culture where 3 or more generations have never worked because there is no need to! and rarely attended school 'cos there's no need to, rarely trained for work, 'cos there's no need to but wow they know their rights and what they're entitled to from the state down to the last penny and the latest piece of furniture/ household equipment.

If NZ is some years behind the UK in some areas, I truly hope they look and learn from the UK's mistakes and don't go down the path of too much State intervention. The welfare State is a wonderful concept to provide help and protection for the needy, unfortunately it has been sadly abused.
Jennie