<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Policy has failed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://clubtroppo.com.au/2005/12/25/policy-has-failed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2005/12/25/policy-has-failed/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Club Troppo &#187; Gender relations in the home</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2005/12/25/policy-has-failed/#comment-28403</link>
		<dc:creator>Club Troppo &#187; Gender relations in the home</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 06:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2018#comment-28403</guid>
		<description>[...] I mentioned a book I've read - "Children of the Lucky Country" below. Here is a quote from it relating to the division of labour at home between the genders (p. 83).  In the past, the way society arranged for the care of children was to ensure that women had little choice but to take on almost the whole of this work. They could not be financially independent, so they had to rely on their husbands for their income. In return, their husbands expected them to take full responsibility for the domestic work and caring for the children (whether or not they actually liked this role). Now women can earn their own incomes, and a majority choose to do so. Who, then takes care of the children? At present the assumption is that this responsibility still rests largely with women. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I mentioned a book I&#8217;ve read - &#8220;Children of the Lucky Country&#8221; below. Here is a quote from it relating to the division of labour at home between the genders (p. 83).  In the past, the way society arranged for the care of children was to ensure that women had little choice but to take on almost the whole of this work. They could not be financially independent, so they had to rely on their husbands for their income. In return, their husbands expected them to take full responsibility for the domestic work and caring for the children (whether or not they actually liked this role). Now women can earn their own incomes, and a majority choose to do so. Who, then takes care of the children? At present the assumption is that this responsibility still rests largely with women. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: blank</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2005/12/25/policy-has-failed/#comment-28368</link>
		<dc:creator>blank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2018#comment-28368</guid>
		<description>If couples really understood the financial and emotional cost of children, I doubt whether anyone would become a parent.

Raising children is the ultimate in private cost and public benefit.  The better parent one is, the less one will get from the public purse,  the fewer costs one will impose on society, and the greater value one's offspring will be to society.

Once upon a time having children was economically advantageous to their parents.  They were not merely extra mouths to feed, but extra hands on the farm or in the business. Then when the parents were no longer able to look after themselves, the children provided the pension plan.  

From an economic point of view,  as things stand to-day, children are nothing but a burden on their parents. It's really personal financial lunacy to have children.

Of course, &lt;i&gt;someone else&lt;/i&gt; must continue to have children, otherwise there will be no economy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If couples really understood the financial and emotional cost of children, I doubt whether anyone would become a parent.</p>
<p>Raising children is the ultimate in private cost and public benefit.  The better parent one is, the less one will get from the public purse,  the fewer costs one will impose on society, and the greater value one&#8217;s offspring will be to society.</p>
<p>Once upon a time having children was economically advantageous to their parents.  They were not merely extra mouths to feed, but extra hands on the farm or in the business. Then when the parents were no longer able to look after themselves, the children provided the pension plan.  </p>
<p>From an economic point of view,  as things stand to-day, children are nothing but a burden on their parents. It&#8217;s really personal financial lunacy to have children.</p>
<p>Of course, <i>someone else</i> must continue to have children, otherwise there will be no economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rafe</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2005/12/25/policy-has-failed/#comment-28350</link>
		<dc:creator>Rafe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2018#comment-28350</guid>
		<description>It sounds pretty ordinary to me, all this stuff about crises to beat us up into a frenzy for more social activism. On the topic of the cost of parenthood, what if people take this into account and plan for it instead of living to the limit and then expecting the state to put their hands into other people's pockets to help. Bah humbug!!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It sounds pretty ordinary to me, all this stuff about crises to beat us up into a frenzy for more social activism. On the topic of the cost of parenthood, what if people take this into account and plan for it instead of living to the limit and then expecting the state to put their hands into other people&#8217;s pockets to help. Bah humbug!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
