Prev
Next

Why shouldn’t we be able to insure domestic labour?

Andi Mastrosavas

by Andi Mastrosavas

27 Apr 01:10pm

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Domestic Duties, Housework, Insurance, Insurance Cover, Society

64 comments

A story recently published on news.com.au about a policy from Million Dollar Woman offering stay at home parents compensation if they are unable to work, totally bemused me. Well not so much the story, which was great. It was the accompanying poll that grabbed my attention. The poll simply asked “Should stay-at-home mums be compensated if they get sick?”

Next time she'll just take insurance

Now given that in order to receive the compensation you have to have taken out an insurance policy to the tune of $40 or $60 a month for the Day-to-Day Living Expenses Cover to pay you either $1,000 or $1,500 fortnightly, it seems a no-brainer to me. Absolutely I say, compensate.

This is a simple insurance policy protecting in most cases the primary care giver in the family. It is not subsidised by the tax payer. It costs us nothing. So given that it is a self-funded voluntary insurance, why would anyone respond to that poll question with a No?

Well, when I took the poll, a staggering 38% of respondents actually said No. The “no” result is as high as 65 per cent on some other websites.

Now, granted it was an excruciatingly small sample size and some people probably responded without reading the details of the policy but I think it runs deeper than that. I think it is largely indicative of how undervalued women’s contribution to unpaid work remains in this country.

Some of the comments on the story confirm my assumptions.

“What, because the husbands or partners can’t take over the house chores? Is this for real? I can see lots of greedy women being “too sick” and taking advantage of this, and keeping the $25K”

“If a man is sick does this insurance also cover ‘Mowing the lawn’, ‘fixing the car’, ‘painting the fence’, ‘cleaning the gutters’, ‘catching spiders’ and all the chores men ‘traditionally’ do? If a working mum is sick does she get sick leave from work, on top of the $900/week insurance? This is rediculous.”

“Wait A Minute, so if they aren’t able to clean the toilet, make the kids beds, take to school, simple chores, then they get $900. Really.”

“Sorry but taking care of a household is not a full time job. Even with kids.. Would require maybe 3 hours a day…. what a joke.”

I would suggest that it is precisely because partners don’t or can’t take over the household chores that these types of insurances evolved in the first place and it borders on the ridiculous to compare catching spiders to raising children. Spiders are far more co-operative and they don’t answer back.

It is one thing to vote against tax payers shouldering yet another societal burden, and something else entirely to suggest that women shouldn’t be compensated by their own insurance policy in the event of a long-term debilitating illness preventing them from working.

The policy stipulates that you must be unable to do two or more tasks such as caring for children under the age of 12, cooking and preparing meals or cleaning the house for more than 14 consecutive days and it requires medical certification.

Why is it important to recognise the value of unpaid work?

Gender aside, could the primary earner in your household afford to take two or more weeks off from work to care for young children and maintain the home if the primary homemaker were unable to?

While it remains invisible, unpaid domestic work will have no impact on politicians and economists who develop and plan appropriate policies, policies that include taxation, welfare and superannuation.

The latest statistics from the ABS (1997) put the value of unpaid work at about $261 billion, equivalent to about 48 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP).

$261billion! Worth insuring, I think. Don’t you?

Most commented

64 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • St. Michael says:

      01:24pm | 27/04/11

      It’s a free country.  It’s also a relatively free market.  If you want to insure yourself against asteroid impact, you should be allowed to.  If there’s an insurer out there that thinks it can turn a profit from offering these policies and they aren’t defrauding their customers, go for it.

      The morons complaining about this haven’t figured out that it won’t be a government paying for the insurance, but rather the husbands and, indirectly, the wives.  Insurers, unlike banks, don’t traditionally get bailed out by governments.  (In point of fact none of them should be bailed out by governments at all, but that’s another story).

      The poll question “Should stay-at-home mums be compensated if they get sick?” was misleading, because by definition it wasn’t asking if you should be able to insure yourself for something.  It was going for the misogynist idiots in the population, and, QED, it worked.

      Reply

    • jf says:

      02:08pm | 27/04/11

      Spot on. If someone wants to offer this cover why on earth would anyone object? It has no impact on them. Actually, on reflection it does; it means that the stay at home spouse has taken responsibility for their own financial affairs rather than relying on the taxpayer.

      Incidentally, spouse cover for non-working spouse has been available in Australia for many years.

    • bec says:

      06:49pm | 27/04/11

      The more I read your comments, the more I like the cut of your jib.

    • michael j says:

      10:35pm | 27/04/11

      I hate having to goggle words,,but is it possible for insurance companies to make a profit without deception and very fine print , and again i was under the impression that any one or anything or situations could be insured if you had the money,,

    • St. Michael says:

      12:28am | 28/04/11

      @ michael j: From memory I think fairsfair or one of the Jades might have worked in claims for an insurance company at one point, so she might be able to set us all straight about that…?

      I think it’s totally possible for insurance companies to make money without fraud.  If they were cheating people on a mass market basis they would go out of business pretty quickly.  As it is, they make their profits because they’re very good institutional gamblers.  They play statistical odds—specifically the odds that you won’t suffer the accident that they’ve promised they’ll cover.  And they’re pretty good odds, since they pay out on many, many claims per year and still pull a pretty decent profit margin.  The myth of the 3 point get-out clause is just that.

    • marley says:

      01:24pm | 27/04/11

      Well, I dunno. $40 to $60 dollars a month ($2080 - 3120 a year) sounds like quite a lot.  During my working life, I only once was away from work due to illness for more than a week in total during the year, so I’d be paying a helluva lot for say $750 worth of benefit for that week of illness.  Over 10 years or so, the insurance company could really soak up a lot of my money.

      Reply

    • Punters Pal says:

      01:51pm | 27/04/11

      Err, run that by me again. Perhaps more like $480 - $720 per year?

    • marley says:

      02:33pm | 27/04/11

      Oop, sorry, what was I thinking?  Arggh.

      Anyway, even though my figures are out, way out, the fact remains, you’re basically self-insuring yourself, if not worse. I don’t reckon I’d be prepared to cough up that much money for a couple of weeks of protection.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:26pm | 27/04/11

      I don’t understand how the costs can be quantified. These are life’s tasks and the idea of being insured for doing what you have to do to ensure that you can function in life (like get out of bed and not have the doorway be blocked by a pile of dirty clothes) seems a bit weird.

      Would love to see some of the claims that will inevitably roll in. And we wonder why it is so expensive to get “essential” insurance.

      Reply

    • HappyCynic says:

      02:41pm | 27/04/11

      It’s easy to quantify the costs of housework.  How much does it cost to hire a person to perform the tasks?  Add supplies, transport and time and you have a cost.  Everything has a cost even life’s tasks.

      Also what does this have to do with the price of other insurance policies?  The price of a policy like this probably has the expected claims costs included.  Well at least it should if the actuaries have done their job correctly.

    • not so fairsfair says:

      02:43pm | 27/04/11

      Really??? wow, I wish I still lived with my parents and only had to worry about how I would “get out of bed and not have the doorway be blocked by a pile of dirty clothes”. In the real world people have to clean a whole house! AND do the washing for the entire family! AND cook for more then 1 person! AND look after kids (I have 3), look after seriously ill partners (or parents or kids, or all three).
      If you think this only takes a couple of hours a day then you should have your kids taken off you because connecting with them takes a heck of a lot of work (fortunately mine are asleep at the moment which is why I can type this comment, but this won’t last much longer). If you actually saw what is involved in the running of a real household (one with a family in it) then you might realise that when you can’t do “life’s tasks” regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to you at the moment then someone may need to be hired to do them just to keep the household running and this seems like the very reason we have insurance in the first place.

    • NicoleG says:

      03:05pm | 27/04/11

      @not so fairsfair, firstly fairsfair does not live with her parents. In fact, she has her own house.

      Secondly, what a load of shit. I too have 3 kids, a husband, a sick father who help my mother look after and I work from home. I have no trouble looking after housework, cooking, running around and all the other stuff. And I’ve managed all of the above for over 22 years. I know very well what’s involved with running a ‘real household’, you know, one with a ‘real family’ in it and it ain’t as difficult as you’re making out.

    • fairsfair says:

      03:17pm | 27/04/11

      HappyCynic, I think that grossly overvalues the cost of housework. It isn’t standard. Some people are happy to wash their sheets once a month, others have to do it once a week. I can’t sleep if there are dishes left in the sink, yet my brother lives in a shit tip. We are all different and because it is different for everyone and everyone does it differently I just struggle to wrap my head around it I guess.

      All products contribute to the cost of insurance. Depending on who underwrites the policy (I am assuming if it is popular everyone will get on board) you will get your life insurance, income protection and potentially your house and car from a single underwriter. Particularly with new products - they are difficult to guage in that anticipated claim volume can be makedly under/overestimated. If big insurers take up offering boutique policies and the claims smash them, they have to recover their costs from somewhere. This generally presents itself in across the board price rises and if it is less than a particular percentage they don’t have to justify that rise. So year by year, up and up it all goes.

      @not so… feel better after getting that off our chest do we? Like it or not - we all have responsibilities in life that we can’t push off on to other people, nor can we expect to do so. Oh and we all have them, so nobody really gives a fig about other people’s. I am an advocate for insurance and I support this product. It is essentially income protection insurance for those who do not have an income, but a responsibility to deliver. If you want to buy it - please do.

    • life throws u curve balls says:

      12:40pm | 28/04/11

      I had a car accident while pregnant, a elderly man ran a stop sign outside the police station. I could no longer do the washing or even load a dishwasher and the list goes on. I wish I had this insurance then but for now 6yrs later on my days were my pain is bearable I at least get some small task done. My house is a mess and as a neat freak it drives me nuts. The hubby reduced his hrs to 4 days a wk to help but doing his chores and mine he is always on catchup. It is impacting the entire family in ways u can’t imagine. If I had this insurance we would have a cleaner. Driving kills me but I have to get kids to school etc. U never know what could happen.

    • fairsfair says:

      03:39pm | 28/04/11

      @life throws you curve balls - before your statute of limitation expires I suggest you consult a lawyer (I think the statute for personal injury is 6 or 7 years). One of those “ambulance chasing” ones who specialise in personal injury. The CTP insurance attached to that old man’s registration fees (if he is QLD but CTP is essential in all states - the lawyer would help you track it down) will respond to your injury and ongoing problems. You will be entitled to claim for you direct costs plus damages.

      Please do it - this is what the policies are for and this is why the governments legislate it as a necessity.

    • papachango says:

      01:29pm | 27/04/11

      Can’t wait for Erick’s considered opinion on this one

      Reply

    • AT says:

      02:04pm | 27/04/11

      Erick’s comments about women appeal only to the sad, pathetic and desperate. Here’s an erudite man making far more sensible comments about a woman;

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4zRe_wvJw8

    • papachango says:

      02:23pm | 27/04/11

      @AT I was being just a little ironic wink

    • Erick says:

      01:35pm | 27/04/11

      “The latest statistics from the ABS (1997) put the value of unpaid work at about $261 billion, equivalent to about 48 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP).”

      Australia’s GDP is around $900 billion. Even with your very unlikely figure of $261 billion, that’s only 29%, not 48%. And I strongly suspect thet “$261 billion” is made up.

      By all means get private insurance. But don’t pretend the work of stay-at-home parents makes a vast contribution to the economy. Three hours a day is about right for what those people actually do.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      01:50pm | 27/04/11

      @ Erick: I’m only reluctantly stepping into what’s probably going to turn into another four-web-page back and forth which your posts seem to turn into wink ) but have you factored in the notional cost of child care into the three hours per day figure? Most carers do get paid at an hourly rate, roughly $17.00 per hour if I remember right.  That blows the figures out somewhat, I would’ve thought.

    • papachango says:

      01:59pm | 27/04/11

      ... and fortunately I didn’t have to wait long

    • HappyCynic says:

      03:27pm | 27/04/11

      @Erick

      Clearly you’ve never been a stay at home mum, so I vote we pass a collection plate around on The Punch to see if we can’t rectify that for you.  A few grand for a sex change operation (hey he doesn’t need to be a pretty girl) and a few million to bribe someone blind, deaf and dumb enough to marry you, an adopted child or two, you’d soon be singing from a very different songbook…  wink

      Also at the time that the value of unpaid work was calculated (in 1997) Australia’s GDP was $544 billion, not around $900 billion, so the 48% is correct at that time.  While I share your suspicion about how the unpaid value figure was worked out at least have the brains to compare like with like.

      *sigh* does no one appreciate using statistics correctly anymore?

    • Erick says:

      03:39pm | 27/04/11

      Let’s not forget that most “unpaid labour” is entirely voluntary labour for the labourer’s own benefit.

      Should I be paid for washing my own car, or mowing my own lawn? Why should parents be paid for raising their own children? The whole idea is a nonsense.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      03:52pm | 27/04/11

      @ Happy

      Yes he will be able to work out garbage like how much his unpaid work is worth and how hard it was to scrub some dishes.

      He could do all this over weekly coffee with the girls, which is on wednesday after nap and book club but before oprah.

      He could then over exaggerate how hard it is to stay at home. AND then bitch that the husband does nothing once he comes home from work.

    • whatahooha says:

      03:58pm | 27/04/11

      yes Erick, and a big Thanks! . Having done my 3 hours I will now put my feet up.

    • HappyCynic says:

      04:18pm | 27/04/11

      @Geoff

      Judging by how he does his best to emulate the stereotype of a grumpy old misogynist, I’m sure Erick would do his absolute best to be the bitchiest, most nagging wife possible smile

    • jf says:

      04:28pm | 27/04/11

      “Should I be paid for washing my own car, or mowing my own lawn? Why should parents be paid for raising their own children? The whole idea is a nonsense.”

      That’s not what it’s for Erick. It’s to pay for someone else to perform those duties usually performed by the primary carer if the primary carer is unable to do them. And it is funded by them. It is a private arrangement; why get so upset about it.

      Oh and the phrase “a nonsense” is, well, nonsense.

    • Rossco says:

      01:46pm | 27/04/11

      We do insure domestic labour, it’s called the dole and the family benefits scheme.

      Reply

    • Shocked says:

      02:27pm | 27/04/11

      “The Dole”!!!??? I can’t believe someone would actually suggest this is a way to “insure domestic labour”! The dole is a support mechanism for people who don’t work in the public (paid) sphere, it does nothing for the unpaid labour done by carers, partners or anyone else done in assisting the day to day living requirements of a household.
      You should also be aware that the family benefits scheme is designed to prevent the financial restrictions of having a family from being as harsh and to promote reproduction in the face of a declining birthrate, it does nothing to assist (and is not designed to assist) if the main care giver of a household is immobilized or seriously ill/injured

    • acotrel says:

      12:24am | 28/04/11

      @shocked Perhaps we could have a mechanism where 50% of workers wages were collected and paid to stay-at-home mothers as a wage? Then men could spend their 50% any way they want?  And if they deserted their wives, the government wouldn’t have to support their families?

    • Rosie says:

      12:58am | 28/04/11

      @ Shocked

      I think Rossco maybe right. We are self retirees so cannot be sure.

      A couple of my golfing friends whose husbands have turned 65 are on the pension. Their wives who are 2 and 3 years younger are not eligible but can go on the dole looking for a job or doing 15 hours a week voluntary work until they turn 65. Both wives were stay at home Mums taking care of the children, husband and house and relied on one income. Both wives have very little superanuation from their single days.

      It use to be that when the husbands went on the dole or pension their wives were also eligible. I believe it was the Howard Govt that changed it. So there, stay at home Mums don’t account for anything these days. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    • Mark says:

      01:49pm | 27/04/11

      There were so many people responding with ‘no’ because the question was misleading. Had it asked whether people should have the right to pay for their own private insurance policies to cover this type of circumstance, and that the payout would not be taxpayer funded, then I would bet the response would have been somewhere akin to indifference. However, that would not have made for a good news story would it? Better to hint that someone may get something for nothing and watch the anger develop.

      Reply

    • papachango says:

      02:20pm | 27/04/11

      You’re absolutely right - the question was ‘Should stay-at-home mums be compensated if they get sick?’ The implication being ‘compensdated by the taxpayer’.

      As a volunatry, private insurance policy, it’s hardly a radical idea, just an alternative form of income protection incurance.

    • Debbie says:

      03:40pm | 27/04/11

      There were so many people responding with “no” because most don’t read and comprehend before firing up and hitting the keyboard smile

    • Kate says:

      02:01pm | 27/04/11

      Nice work Andi. Maybe insurers could also introduce a policy for when other types of carers get sick.

      Reply

    • jf says:

      04:18pm | 27/04/11

      They do. If this is you, get some advice.

    • Direct says:

      02:08pm | 27/04/11

      Andi, you state that the ABS put the value of unpaid work at about $261 billion. So even if that figure was correct, it would appear you are also conflating all unpaid work (e.g. volunteers like the Rural Fire Service) with domestic chores traditionally handled by women.

      You also state that women’s contribution to unpaid work remains undervalued in this country and that some comments confirm this assumption, when in reality, your initial assumption is incorrect because it’s based on an underlying overvaluation of domestic chores performed by women.

      Reply

    • Carz says:

      03:13pm | 27/04/11

      I think you will find that the “value” placed on the chores is set by market value. i.e. child care cost per hour in a centre, cost of hiring someone to do household cleaning, cost of hiring a cook.

      “You also state that women’s contribution to unpaid work remains undervalued in this country and that some comments confirm this assumption, when in reality, your initial assumption is incorrect because it’s based on an underlying overvaluation of domestic chores performed by women. “

      Would the valuation of domestic chores differ if they were done by men?

    • Erick says:

      03:43pm | 27/04/11

      Why is there a “valuation” of unpaid chores at all? If you paint your own house, or vacuum your own floor, you are simply doing work for yourself. The same if you feed and wash your own child.

      The whole idea that unpaid work for your own benefit has some external value is just nonsense. You might as well count the time I put into making model aeroplanes into the GDP. It’s bullshit.

    • MyLogicalMind says:

      04:00pm | 27/04/11

      While I applaud your attempt at creating a logical and convincing argument supporting your opinion, you have missed a few false premises yourself (your argument is also false).
      I will assume that you are correct when you checked the ABS and found the data stated and it was really great that you did the research for it.
      However, your premise for the second part of your comment (the base of your argument) is that the work performed by women is not undervalued.
      Why this assumption is not correct:
      Firstly: please note that I have not said you are wrong, just not correct.
      Why you are not correct: you have not given any evidence to show why the authors assumption is not correct. If the author was bringing up new ideas then the onus would be on the author to provide the evidence but because the author is expressing something that many in society already believe and support then the onus goes back onto you to provide. It is also simply a good idea to provide evidence in support of your arguments or you fall into a “he said, she said” type argument that inevitably convinces no one and ends in stalemate.
      Personally I agree with the author that the work done in female dominated industries are largely undervalued because the industries are carer based industries attributed to unpaid “private sphere” work and have had long battles to get the basic recognition that they have today.

    • Reality Jane says:

      08:17pm | 27/04/11

      Voluntary domestic labour is not “undervalued”. Voluntary domestic labour exists in a free market and that market has efficiently priced it. It just so happens that the free market price is $0.00/hr.

    • KH says:

      02:20pm | 27/04/11

      Only insure what you can’t afford to lose.  The kind of people who would probably be interested in (and could afford) a policy like this, are families where there is only one wage earner, and that person works long hours, or families where they don’t have a lot of support from extended family.  Anyone who has ever spent even a few hours with a small child knows how really draining it can be.  On top of that, you are cleaning the house, probably cooking, running errands, there might be childcare or school around.  Lets imagine you are the wage earner, and you work say 50 hours a week.  Your partner gets sick - really sick.  Maybe hospitalised for a period.  Now you have to work, look after the children, run the errands, do all the housework, and look after the sick spouse - if it involves hospitals and so on, that could be incredibly stressful….....the money might allow you to hire a cleaner, or a ‘nanny’ type person to run around after the children, or allow you to cut back your hours for a short period, or whatever.

      These kinds of policies would have a lot of conditions (if they are like other life policies I have seen), there would be a defined benefit period (i.e. it wouldn’t go on forever), and it might depend on the type of injury/illness.  The simple fact is most people don’t really think about the out of the blue things that can happen - you could be in a car accident.  You could get an illness that requires surgery and so on.  You could do your knee on the morning run…..............People who work have other kinds of policies - i.e. income protection and the like.  This is the same thing, only covering the cost of replacing your unpaid domestic worker - these tasks take time and if you had to hire someone, would have a cost.    No one is going to do these things for free unless you are lucky enough to have family that might step in, or you are really rich - if you are either of these things, then you don’t need the insurance, do you?

      Reply

    • Agree Entirely says:

      08:58pm | 27/04/11

      Thank You for a clearly phrased example of why this is such a necessary policy. You have framed it in a way that is easy to follow and shows many for whom this is a necessary part of life.
      I cannot thank you enough for this comment and pray that your days are filled with happiness and God blesses your life.

    • Markus says:

      02:22pm | 27/04/11

      Provided it is privately funded, and remains to be that way in the future, then people are free to insure themselves for whatever the hell they want.
      Honestly it sounds like income insurance, which begs the question how they are going to quantify the amount couples would be insured for.

      As Mark (good name) just said above, I think the result is largely indicative of deliberately misleading wording and statistics rife in all these modern day “polls”, as opposed to some deep-seeded disdain and undervaluing of women’s work.

      Reply

    • Outraged says:

      02:31pm | 27/04/11

      ...and what about SINGLE-PERSON Households? Can they apply, Andi?

      I am a single male who lives alone. I do all my own “unpaid housework”. No woman helps me out. Does that mean if I am sick I could get paid or does it only apply to housewives being “oppressed” by the patriarchy?

      Reply

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      03:06pm | 27/04/11

      Yes, Outraged. I live alone and take taken out income insurance, to cover me if I get sick and can’t earn an income.
      It’s quite easy to get and it’s advertised all the time, along with funeral plans.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:08pm | 27/04/11

      For crying out loud read the article.  It’s not compensation, it’s insurance.  You’ve had your chain yanked.

    • jf says:

      04:19pm | 27/04/11

      Nah mate, stay at home househusbands can get it to.

    • Matt F says:

      10:15pm | 27/04/11

      you’d be less outraged if you actually read and comprehended the article

    • Timmy says:

      02:37pm | 27/04/11

      Maybe if each household became a registered company and used cost center accounting. We could internally invoice each other for services rendered. In that way we could then establish the true cost of household work on the GDP.

      Reply

    • Thommo says:

      11:33am | 28/04/11

      Nice one wink

    • Super D says:

      04:40pm | 27/04/11

      It might be $261 billion based on our inflated wage structure but the real value of the work performed is a mere fraction of this value.

      I don’t see why we can’t just import domestic servants from other countries.  The people in poor countries get money and we get out of doing chores.  Seems a win/win to me.

      Reply

    • Reality Jane says:

      08:26pm | 27/04/11

      Sounds too sensible for Strayla. In fact it sounds unaustralian.

      It’s the “fair go” to have a highly regulated workplace. People paid to do nothing. Labour priced by the all knowing central planners in the gummint. People priced out of a job and jobs like basic maintenance of public space priced out of being done. We cannot have adults entering into contracts without government oversight. Better those people starve on the third world than come here and take our jobs.

    • Bikinis On Top says:

      06:33pm | 27/04/11

      David Flint has been bewitched by the Age of the Flintstones and Jurassic Park rather than the Age Of The Jetsons.
      He is waiting for 1984 and the War Of The Worlds.

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      08:53pm | 27/04/11

      My husband is currently on Income Protection insurance for an injury (he is self employed).  If the tables were reversed, you have to think of the possiblity of the husband having to give up some work time, or all of his spare time, to look after his wife. Not to mention, if the policy is like other income protection, you have to have a waiting period, and proof from doctors. you just can’t be ‘sick’.  Given when you don’t work, you can only have limited insurance as it is, I think this is a great insurnace, esp if you have a few kids, and if the illness/injury is long term (think time in hospital etc).

      Reply

    • nodd says:

      10:13pm | 27/04/11

      What crap, stay at home mums have zero value. They choses to give up work for their own selfish desires and expect the rest of us to pay for it.

      We do not need to pay for their offspring when we can import as many new Austrailians as required to fill all our needs.

      If they chose to have children they should be prepared to pay their own way.

      Reply

    • TCB 24 X 7 says:

      10:58pm | 27/04/11

      Oh yeah noddy,
      Well who fed, protected and wiped your arse when you were a bub.
      otherwise you would be dead and would not have been able to make this comment.
      Families are the backbone of any country and the work mothers do is priceless.
                            PS are you a commie.

    • Thommo says:

      10:59am | 28/04/11

      The article which was reported on 7pm project last night said that stay at home mums did $140,000 a year worth of work. I would like to call bullshit on that figure. Let’s say that the stay at home mums value is $20 per hour - at that rate that’s 7000 hours a year. Or almost 20 hours per day. So as you can see teh figure is complete and utter bullshit. My wife does around 2-3 hours per day of hoursework and looking after the kids - that’s about 1000 hours a year - even at $30 per hour taht’s only $30,000 per annum. And considering I make the dinner every single day and do the dishes , mow the lawns (2.5 acres), spray the weeds, re-cement the steps, erect the shed, feed teh animals, driver the children everywhere - as well as working 50 hours a week in a job. I honestly think I contribute more - but now with this disinformation out there I’m having to justify myself again - I bet there’s many couples now fighting becuase of this erroneous article.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      12:37pm | 28/04/11

      To Erick,  thank you for supporting me on my bad spelling and punctuation
      ,it is not that I had a bad education just a bad day.Although I was only 15 when I left school but since then I have been in the university of life, for well over 70 years.
      The reason I don’t post very much now, is because of people like Shane ,if you can’t debate or constructive with out being rude ,then don’t say any thing.

      Reply

    • Wanelly says:

      08:09pm | 10/02/12

      Worky,Bill Appleyard, the hradest man ever to play for the Toon. Even harder than McNamee.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter