Comments on: And ten grand for your service to the country… http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/ Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:11:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Backroom Girl http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65906 Backroom Girl Fri, 21 Sep 2007 05:24:25 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65906 I think it is reading too much into the government's motives to conclude that the Baby Bonus in its current form aims to encourage any particular segment of the population to reproduce (as opposed to providing a more general, if marginal, incentive for breeding). Indeed if its intent was to encourage white middle-class women to have more babies I suspect it will turn out to have been an abject failure or at the very least one with a huge deadweight cost. Women who have more children are likely to be from lower socio-economic groups, more poorly educated, with lower labour force attachment and/or living outside the major metropolitan areas. I would be very surprised if the Baby Bonus has changed any of this. So as a eugenicist policy it would have to be judged a failure. Somebody raised the issue of whether the BB is designed to encourage women to leave or stay out of the workforce. To the extent that the government has policies with this objective, you would have to point the figure at Family Tax Benefit (especially Part B), not the BB. In reality, the BB is just a fairly typical policy compromise from a government who wanted to be seen to be providing compensation to new mothers, but didn't want to be accused of discriminating against those who were not currently in the workforce or spend too much money either. I think it is reading too much into the government’s motives to conclude that the Baby Bonus in its current form aims to encourage any particular segment of the population to reproduce (as opposed to providing a more general, if marginal, incentive for breeding). Indeed if its intent was to encourage white middle-class women to have more babies I suspect it will turn out to have been an abject failure or at the very least one with a huge deadweight cost.

Women who have more children are likely to be from lower socio-economic groups, more poorly educated, with lower labour force attachment and/or living outside the major metropolitan areas. I would be very surprised if the Baby Bonus has changed any of this. So as a eugenicist policy it would have to be judged a failure.

Somebody raised the issue of whether the BB is designed to encourage women to leave or stay out of the workforce. To the extent that the government has policies with this objective, you would have to point the figure at Family Tax Benefit (especially Part B), not the BB. In reality, the BB is just a fairly typical policy compromise from a government who wanted to be seen to be providing compensation to new mothers, but didn’t want to be accused of discriminating against those who were not currently in the workforce or spend too much money either.

]]> By: Helen http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65905 Helen Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:16:51 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65905 silkworm on 20 September 2007 at 4:55 pm <blockquote> ...and should be trying to discourage population growth, by placing a tax on the third child rather than giving a bonus, and by removing the tax incentives for families. This is one of the means that Australia needs to adopt in order to reduce our impact on the environment, especially our collective carbon footprint. </blockquote> jinmaro on 20 September 2007 at 5:16 pm <blockquote> Couldn’t agree more Silkworm, and a Bloggers’ First Award for raising this far more pertinent issue raised by the baby bonus but which sadly is verboten everywhere even in the Oz blogosphere it seems. </blockquote> What about WBB wbb on 19 September 2007 at 5:32 pm? Is he chopped liver? <blockquote> Until population growth is seen as a problem rather than an achievement we will continue to see baby bonuses and the like offered up by government. State premiers for example still crow when their population growth rates outstrip neighbouring states. Then they are surprised when they are told they are running out of water etc. We need a new generation of leadership on this issue. </blockquote> I agree, BTW. We have to disengage environmental arguments re. population control from the ugly nativists who have co-opted them - historically they've been messily tangled (e.g., Australians against further immigration, etc.). That doesn't mean I'm opposed to parental leave, either (I'm generally an agitator for such measures; Baby bonuses, not so much.) I just don't think having more kids is an end in itself. silkworm on 20 September 2007 at 4:55 pm

…and should be trying to discourage population growth, by placing a tax on the third child rather than giving a bonus, and by removing the tax incentives for families. This is one of the means that Australia needs to adopt in order to reduce our impact on the environment, especially our collective carbon footprint.

jinmaro on 20 September 2007 at 5:16 pm

Couldn’t agree more Silkworm, and a Bloggers’ First Award for raising this far more pertinent issue raised by the baby bonus but which sadly is verboten everywhere even in the Oz blogosphere it seems.

What about WBB wbb on 19 September 2007 at 5:32 pm? Is he chopped liver?

Until population growth is seen as a problem rather than an achievement we will continue to see baby bonuses and the like offered up by government.
State premiers for example still crow when their population growth rates outstrip neighbouring states. Then they are surprised when they are told they are running out of water etc. We need a new generation of leadership on this issue.

I agree, BTW. We have to disengage environmental arguments re. population control from the ugly nativists who have co-opted them – historically they’ve been messily tangled (e.g., Australians against further immigration, etc.). That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to parental leave, either (I’m generally an agitator for such measures; Baby bonuses, not so much.) I just don’t think having more kids is an end in itself.

]]> By: Anthony (a different one: well the same one by now) http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65904 Anthony (a different one: well the same one by now) Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:06:18 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65904 "People seem to have a very sanguine view of the government’s motives." Well, perhaps, Mark, but to channel Baroness Thatcher (and I promise this is the first and last time): who are they, and what are their names? In fact many people in this thread aren't sanguine about the government's motives. I was saying earlier you can be completely cynical about the government's policies and even recognise that those parental leave schemes we now recognise as a progressive model (viz. Scandinavia) also started with less than pure (viz. eugenicist) motives. Take the money and run, I say. The state will always intervene to subsidise the geese that lays its golden egg, viz the proletariat, lest the golden eggs cease to come “People seem to have a very sanguine view of the government’s motives.”

Well, perhaps, Mark, but to channel Baroness Thatcher (and I promise this is the first and last time): who are they, and what are their names? In fact many people in this thread aren’t sanguine about the government’s motives. I was saying earlier you can be completely cynical about the government’s policies and even recognise that those parental leave schemes we now recognise as a progressive model (viz. Scandinavia) also started with less than pure (viz. eugenicist) motives. Take the money and run, I say. The state will always intervene to subsidise the geese that lays its golden egg, viz the proletariat, lest the golden eggs cease to come

]]> By: Sam Clifford http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65903 Sam Clifford Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:52:04 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65903 I agree, too, silkworm. As soon as you say you favour a population reduction, though, the pro-growth elements of society (usually developers and conservatives) will say one of two things; "Who are you going to kill first?" or they'll accuse you of being an authoritarian communist. The fact is we've got too many people and need to start looking at negative population growth if we're going to have a habitable planet. I agree, too, silkworm. As soon as you say you favour a population reduction, though, the pro-growth elements of society (usually developers and conservatives) will say one of two things; “Who are you going to kill first?” or they’ll accuse you of being an authoritarian communist.

The fact is we’ve got too many people and need to start looking at negative population growth if we’re going to have a habitable planet.

]]> By: jinmaro http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65902 jinmaro Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:16:18 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65902 Couldn't agree more Silkworm, and a Bloggers' First Award for raising this far more pertinent issue raised by the baby bonus but which sadly is verboten everywhere even in the Oz blogosphere it seems. Which is pretty pathetic. Would love to see a proper post and debate on it once before overpopulation oblivion. Couldn’t agree more Silkworm, and a Bloggers’ First Award for raising this far more pertinent issue raised by the baby bonus but which sadly is verboten everywhere even in the Oz blogosphere it seems. Which is pretty pathetic. Would love to see a proper post and debate on it once before overpopulation oblivion.

]]> By: silkworm http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65901 silkworm Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:55:29 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65901 Rather than seeking to encourage population growth, Australia should be following China's lead and should be trying to discourage population growth, by placing a tax on the third child rather than giving a bonus, and by removing the tax incentives for families. This is one of the means that Australia needs to adopt in order to reduce our impact on the environment, especially our collective carbon footprint. Rather than seeking to encourage population growth, Australia should be following China’s lead and should be trying to discourage population growth, by placing a tax on the third child rather than giving a bonus, and by removing the tax incentives for families. This is one of the means that Australia needs to adopt in order to reduce our impact on the environment, especially our collective carbon footprint.

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65900 Mark Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:36:03 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65900 I'll repeat once again - it's important to look at the context and the rhetoric that accompanied the introduction of the policy. People seem to have a very sanguine view of the government's motives. There's almost no good reason from a policy perspective to prefer this approach to other things like parental leave. I’ll repeat once again – it’s important to look at the context and the rhetoric that accompanied the introduction of the policy. People seem to have a very sanguine view of the government’s motives. There’s almost no good reason from a policy perspective to prefer this approach to other things like parental leave.

]]> By: Cliff http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65899 Cliff Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:50:17 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65899 Just because there was a baby bonus for white women doesn't make the current baby bonus racist. As far as I know, the policy in its current incarnation is not targeted specifically at families of a particular race or culture. Furthermore, the argument that it is trying to coax women out the workplace may be in keeping with Howard's personal philosophy, but I don't think the policy specifically attempts to do this. In fact, it could be seen as a recognition that in our modern society, where women do go into the workforce, and often have to do so in order for families and couples to make ends meet (the 'family wage' for males being long gone from as a pillar of our IR system), that bringing a child into the world can become a significant burden on time and finances, particularly if a mother or father has to take time off work. Given this, I think that the baby bonuses are quite modest, given how much money couples are likely to save if they don't have children... I think people are by and large still having children for the same old reasons: out of love, or by accident. A payment of 10,000 is perhaps a far more realistic incentive in that light. Government's recognizing the importance of child birth and child rearing is not, prima facie, racist or sexist... and a country shouldn't have to rely on immigration to maintain population levels. Recognizing that is not racist. If it is, then I think the epithet is losing its meaning, and its status as something that is truly pernicious and harmful. Just because there was a baby bonus for white women doesn’t make the current baby bonus racist. As far as I know, the policy in its current incarnation is not targeted specifically at families of a particular race or culture. Furthermore, the argument that it is trying to coax women out the workplace may be in keeping with Howard’s personal philosophy, but I don’t think the policy specifically attempts to do this. In fact, it could be seen as a recognition that in our modern society, where women do go into the workforce, and often have to do so in order for families and couples to make ends meet (the ‘family wage’ for males being long gone from as a pillar of our IR system), that bringing a child into the world can become a significant burden on time and finances, particularly if a mother or father has to take time off work. Given this, I think that the baby bonuses are quite modest, given how much money couples are likely to save if they don’t have children… I think people are by and large still having children for the same old reasons: out of love, or by accident. A payment of 10,000 is perhaps a far more realistic incentive in that light. Government’s recognizing the importance of child birth and child rearing is not, prima facie, racist or sexist… and a country shouldn’t have to rely on immigration to maintain population levels. Recognizing that is not racist. If it is, then I think the epithet is losing its meaning, and its status as something that is truly pernicious and harmful.

]]> By: arleeshar http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65898 arleeshar Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:23:35 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65898 <blockquote>These measures are inflationary and otherwise economically irresponsible as I said, but pocketing the $ doesn’t slime you with any eugenicist nonsense.</blockquote> I have never said otherwise. I disagree with the policy but $ are always useful and as I said earlier in a comment on this thread, I think the bb should exist in tandem with paid maternity leave.

These measures are inflationary and otherwise economically irresponsible as I said, but pocketing the $ doesn’t slime you with any eugenicist nonsense.

I have never said otherwise. I disagree with the policy but $ are always useful and as I said earlier in a comment on this thread, I think the bb should exist in tandem with paid maternity leave.

]]> By: Chris http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65897 Chris Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:24:08 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/18/and-ten-grand-for-your-service-to-the-country/#comment-65897 <blockquote>Until population growth is seen as a problem rather than an achievement we will continue to see baby bonuses and the like offered up by government.</blockquote> Is it really about population growth though or just making sure that we don't end up with rapid population shrinkage as the baby boomers start to die off (even if it would solve the housing affordability problem if we end up with more houses than people!)? These sort of things are very much long term planning.

Until population growth is seen as a problem rather than an achievement we will continue to see baby bonuses and the like offered up by government.

Is it really about population growth though or just making sure that we don’t end up with rapid population shrinkage as the baby boomers start to die off (even if it would solve the housing affordability problem if we end up with more houses than people!)? These sort of things are very much long term planning.

]]>