I have a lot of sympathy for the striking women. The reason they’re exploited – paid 47 cents above the minimum wage of $21.85 an hour – is that the ‘national conversation’ doorkeepers of our time want cheap governesses. They remind me of Queen Mary whose only personal involvement in her children’s lives was the “daily viewing.” Unions, both major parties and feminists have no interest in lifting the income of ladies-in-waiting because to do so threatens one of the holiest shibboleths of contemporary Western society: the delusional idea that all women must be half-baked men with lifetime ‘careers.’ To pay for the mothering these ‘childcare’ workers do threatens that lie. Just as luvvies and Tealers want cheap solar panels – and don’t mind that Chinese and Vietnamese slave women make them – they also want cut-price toddlers. The only ‘solution’ that will be touted – inevitably – is a fully government-funded system. The more our ‘thinkers’ hype the threat it poses to ‘Western values,’ the more eagerly they ape China.
We would like to see a subsidy model, like the JobKeeper payment paid to employers, but that money has to flow directly into the wages of educators and teachers, and we wouldn’t want to see any additional funding being used for other purposes. We don’t want families to be out of pocket at all.”
The e or ours subsidies already paid of course are rapidly absorbed as economics rent by the childcare owners.
As for teh job keeper brain fart of a proposal, what she really wants is for them to be paid as public servants but without the accountability.
Looking after babies and toddlers on your own, is relentless, demanding and often tedious and boring, you have to be absolutely committed to your children, that used to be natural but now it’s not good enough a reason for many families.
My observations of carers is that they generally do a very good job, let parents pay them more, not taxpayers.
I would also point out that it is a short term thing, paying for childcare, certainly for the the entitled that only have their one designer snot wiper. Only a couple of years.
‘We don’t want families to be out of pocket at all.’
Who do you think is paying the extra taxes into the public coffers you are proposing to raid? Silly bint.
Also, what kind of imbecile requires two years of training (a diploma) to babysit?
If you did need that kind of training, should you be looking after any children at all? Even your own. Would two years be enough? Would ten?
Surely, it’s two weeks of supervision and instruction while the working-with-children check comes back.
Nobody requires it. They made it a ‘profession’ and started talking about ‘early education’ for two reasons: first (and most importantly) to normalise Soviet child-rearing from babyhood on and, second, to justify higher pay.
The latter has never worked as a policy because politicians fear expensive ‘childcare’ more than they fear its industrially powerless workers. Overlay that with a professional, feminist elite that sees ‘childcare’ as the sine quo non of women’s workforce participation rates (to say nothing of their own financial margins) and, bottom line, nobody wants to end the indentured governess racket.
The only way to have universal ‘childcare’ that costs less than the amount women earn per week is for the government to run and/or subsidise every creche in the country.
You have to wonder why the authorities even bother with working-with-children check ups these days when arguably the most inappropriate people to be near children – drag queens – are permitted to “entertain” them, even have them sit on their lap.
Terry, the word ‘free’ now means the public pays for this thing that I want.
Where did they come from back in the olden days?
So, you send your kids out to childcare so you can go to your job as a childcare worker? Makes sense.
Here is a policy proposal that would, of course, be shouted down as extreme right-wing fascist repression: let’s just give all this money to parents (as Chifley and Menzies did with the old Child Endowment) and let them make their own decisions about how they raise their children.
The trouble is, of course, that they might choose options of which Big Sister in the bureaucratic Soviet (or is that Big Female-Identifying Sibling?) disapproves. They might even give their disgusting prolespawn the revolting idea that the family comes before the state!