Pentru cei mai multi romani, tendintele demografice par a fi un subiect academic, cel putin judecand dupa atentia relativa acordata subiectului. Nu asa stau lucrurile in alte parti, unde (si) din cauza calculelor si tendintelor demografice se ajusteaza corespunzator o sumedenie de lucruri--de la politica de imigratie, pana la pretul locuintelor, de la oportunitatea razboiului in prezent pana la acceptarea pacii pe termen lung.
Asa numitele 'bombe demografice' sunt in fond expresii metaforice menite sa redea scara fenomenului transformarilor demografice. Cand este vorba de o bomba demografica in contextul unei tari, problema este de obicei cu cresterea natalitatii unui segment al populatiei la rate foarte mari, pe fondul unei ratei a natalitatii foarte scazute in randul majoritatii cetatenilor acelei tari. De obicei, bombei demografice ii este asociata o conotatie aproape subversiva. Ca exemple putem sa luam multe din tarile occidentale. Cu rate nationale ale natalitatii la jumatate din cea la care numarul locuitorilor ar ramane constant (2,1%), in multe din aceste tari deja se face simtita explozia demografica asociata cu imigrantii de origine araba. In SUA, rata natalitatii este mai mare, insa asta mai ales pe seama imigrantilor de origine hispanica de la sud. Profesorul Huntington, acelasi care a lansat teoria conflictului inter-civilizatii la sfarsitul razboiului rece, atragea atentia la pericolul schimbarii Americii de catre populatia hispanica ce creste mult mai rapid (prin imigratie si spor natural deopotriva) decat restul.
Este ca si cum demografia ar urma cea de-a doua lege a termodinamicii: populatiile din zonele sarace se multiplica la rate mult mai mari decat cele din tarile/zonele bogate, iar balansarea sitatiei se face in pofida afinitatilor (sau mai degraba, in lipsa acestora) culturale prin imigratie: de la zonele cu crestere foarte rapida la zonele cu populatie stagnanta sau descrescanda. In realitate, nu legile termodinamicii dicteaza asemenea migratii cat legile economice--si la sursa si de la destinatie.
In ceea ce priveste Romania, populatia este evaluata la 21,7 milioane de locuitori in 2004, 18,1 milioane in 2025 si 15,7 milioane in 2050--este prconizata o scadere de 27,6%. Rata de crestere naturala este negativa (-0,3%), iar fertilitatea femeilor este 1,2 copii.
Care este parerea ta despre tendintele demografice in Romania sau locul unde te afli cititorule?
De la: Bumerang din Frankfurt
demografie
Scaderea populatiei este in raport direct cu stadiul de educatie a populatiei.
Simplu spus, cu cat o familie sau un cuplu este mai educat/a, cu ata mai mult se va gandi daca poate sa intretina copii in conditii decente sau nu. Si prin conditii decente nu ma refer numai la bucata de paine si un acoperis! Caci atunci in vest ar trebuii sa fie plin de copii. Ci prin conditii decente inteleg si respectul societatii fata de familie si individ! Iar acest respect este minim astazi. Spiritul de autoconservare i-mi interzice, mie cel putzin, sa mai fac un copil. Pt ca doresc ca cel pe care i-l am sa aibe conditiile cele mai bune, ca sa razbata in societate. Daca as fi avut o situatie materiala medie sau sub medie, n-as fi avut nici un copil. Scurt si cuprinzator.
Cei care vorbesc despre morala, avorturi etc. nu-si dau seama de realitate. Asa ceva nu a existat niciodata! Rata natalitatii a fost in trecut mai mare deoarece propaganda statala si bisericeasca dorea o crestere a populatiei, datorita faptului ca gradul de industrializare era inexistent sau mai traziu mic(Acum 1000 de ani traiau aprox 23 Mio de oameni in Europa de vest si centrala. Astazi sunt 375 Mio!). Deci trebuiau "multi porsti" care sa munceasca pt cei bogati. Astazi nu numai ca nu mai e nevoie de prosti, si cei un pic mai destepti fac greva si nu mai vor sa se sacrifice pt cei care detin marea parte a bogatiilor.
De aceea state ca si cele Europene dar si USA Canada etc, vor si au nevoie de migratie. cai fie vorba intre noi, cei care vin sunt mai "prosti". Si aici nu ma refer neaparat la gradul de inteligenta si scolarizare, ci la faptul ca au mai putina experienta a vietii moderne, in care fiecare trage pt. el! Ei vin cu idealuri din tari in care consumul era redus la un minimum, si ajungand acolo cred ca totul e posibil. I-si fac astfel datorii pt case, masini si alte bunuri pe care de fapt nu si le-ar putea permite dupa standardele de acolo fara sa faca eforturi prea mari, autotransformanduse astfel in sclavii societatii.
Spre exemplu in Germania pretul imobilelr in anii 90 au explodat. Dobanzile erau la un maximum. Multi emigranti au cumparat case si apartamente la care plateau rate peste 50 % din venitul total al familiei. Nimeni nu le-a spus ca asa un pas nu se merita. Si chiar daca da, euforia vestului ia impins s-o faca. Dupa metoda, las ca nu murim de foame. In Ro a fost cu mult mai rau.
Pana se prin ca au ajuns sclavii casei, care intre timp nici macar nu a crescut in valoare, ba chiar in multe cazuri a scazut, e tarziu. Raportat la standardul de aici, au trait greu. Au mai luat un job, au trimis copii sa imparte reclame etc.
Daca nu ar fi fost ie, preturile la imobile nu urcau asa de mult. dar asa e, ca la armata. Bibanii fac sectoare pana ajung veterani......
In incheiere, un citat:
Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.
Arnold Toynbee
Da click aici ca sa vezi totul!
3 comentarii:
De la: neamtu tiganu din nemtia
Re: demografie--te contrazis..
Bumerang a scris:
> Scaderea populatiei este in raport direct cu stadiul de educatie a
> populatiei.
Io as zice ca e in raport cu gradul de egoism. Cel putin in Germania sunt multi care au conditii materiale mai mult decit acceptabile dar nu vor copii pt. ca nu vor sa investeasca TIMP in aceasta "afacere" si nu sunt gata sa-si asume RASPUNDEREA cresterii unui copil.
Apropos in Germania populatia a scazut in anu precedent cu 31000, mortalitatea a depasit cu 130000 nasterile, faptul ca a ramas la 31000 e data de emigranti.
In rest chestia cu "exploatarea" emigrantilor ai dreptate. Cind am venit in Germania am fost pur si simplu sufocat de multimea ofertelor de tot felul. Am zis de fiecare data NU. Nefasta chiar zicea ca sunt fricos, i-am explicat cindva ca astia nu vor decit banii mei, pe care pe vremea aia nici nu-i aveam.
De la: Sobru
Re: demografie--te contrazis..
Masura este data totusi de gradul de educatie, adica de gradul de responsabilitate. Persoanele needucate nu fac copii din altruism ci pentru ca sint iresponsabile. In ceea ce priveste deci egoismul, el poate fi prezent si in cazul persoanelor educate asa cum ai spus, dar cu atat mai mult in cazul celor needucate care nu se gandesc la consecinte.
Legat de avort, el este in mod evident o crima si un pacat grav. Numai ca trebuie inteles, ca omul nu e in masura sa pedepseasca, rostul real al legii fiind acela de a lua masura de aparare. Cum femeia care face avort nu reprezinta un pericol pentru ceilalti, nu se poate lua nici o masura impotriva, in sensul de a-i face un rau avand ca pretext pacatul.
De la: Bumerang din Frankfurt
Re: demografie--te contrazis..
neamtu tiganu a scris:
> > Scaderea populatiei este in raport direct cu stadiul de educatie a
> > populatiei.
>
> Io as zice ca e in raport cu gradul de egoism. Cel putin in Germania
> sunt multi care au conditii materiale mai mult decit acceptabile dar
> nu vor copii pt. ca nu vor sa investeasca TIMP in aceasta
> "afacere" si nu sunt gata sa-si asume RASPUNDEREA cresterii
> unui copil.
Hai sa fim sinceri. Cei care faceau copii multi in Ro o faceau in deplina cunostinta de cauza? Eu cred ca nu. Ei erau la fel de egoisti ca si cei din vest. Numai ca nu puteau sa faca rost de anticonceptionale sau in caz ca era prea tarziu sa faca avort. In plus le era frica ca raman la batranete singuri, si pensia de la stat era de neglijat. Deci trebuia sa fie cate un copil pe langa sa le dea un pahar cu apa la batranete. Asta tot egoism se numeste.
De cei din lumea a treie nu ma leg pt ca nici nu se gandesc ce-o sa le dea de mancare la prunci!!
> Apropos in Germania populatia a scazut in anu precedent cu 31000,
> mortalitatea a depasit cu 130000 nasterile, faptul ca a ramas la
> 31000 e data de emigranti.
>
> In rest chestia cu "exploatarea" emigrantilor ai dreptate.
> Cind am venit in Germania am fost pur si simplu sufocat de multimea
> ofertelor de tot felul. Am zis de fiecare data NU. Nefasta chiar
> zicea ca sunt fricos, i-am explicat cindva ca astia nu vor decit
> banii mei, pe care pe vremea aia nici nu-i aveam.
Bine ca ai rezistat ispitei :-) Cand te gandesti ca ca acum platesti 3,75% dobanda pe 15 ani fix, i-tzi vine sa-tzi dai pumni in cap daca esti printre cei care au facut "afecerea vietii lor" prin 90, cumparand ce nu au vrut nemtzii si la un pret de castel, la vreo 8-9 % :-)
Cunosc pe unii care merg cu BMW-ul nou in concediu in Ro si se dau mari afaceristi etc, iar aici mananca paine cu untura adusa de acasa. Asta in cel mai bun caz. Mai e altul care are un Mercedes E pe leasing , care-l tine in garaj sa nu se zgarie si merge cu un Golf II la lucru si chiar in concediu.
Si are si doi copii...
Dar asta e cine nu cunoaste plateste :-)
De la: Scorilo
Re: demografie--te contrazis.. NT
neamtu tiganu a scris:
> > Scaderea populatiei este in raport direct cu stadiul de educatie a
> > populatiei.
>
> Io as zice ca e in raport cu gradul de egoism. Cel putin in Germania
> sunt multi care au conditii materiale mai mult decit acceptabile dar
> nu vor copii pt. ca nu vor sa investeasca TIMP in aceasta
> "afacere" si nu sunt gata sa-si asume RASPUNDEREA cresterii
> unui copil.
Aici cred ca ai dreptate: a avea grija de un copil mic e echivalent cu o slujba cu norma intreaga, ba chiar mai mult, ca tre' sa "muncesti" si noaptea, ca se scoala "ala micu" si plange.
Daca faci fo 3 copiii "la foc automat", adica in vreo 4-5 ani, iaca beleaua! Vezi tu vreo europeaca gata sa lucreze 3 "job"-uri deodata? Hai sa fim oameni seriosi! Daca ar putea, n-ar lucra nici unu (las' ca aduce fraieru' bani acasa, de ce sa-mi stric io tenu' muncind...)
De la: OpenMind2003
Re: demografie
Bumerang a scris:
> Scaderea populatiei este in raport direct cu stadiul de educatie a
> populatiei.
> Simplu spus, cu cat o familie sau un cuplu este mai educat/a, cu ata
> mai mult se va gandi daca poate sa intretina copii in conditii
> decente sau nu. Si prin conditii decente nu ma refer numai la bucata
> de paine si un acoperis! Caci atunci in vest ar trebuii sa fie plin
> de copii. Ci prin conditii decente inteleg si respectul societatii
> fata de familie si individ! Iar acest respect este minim astazi.
Despre ce educatie vorbesti? Educatia din scoala?
Cea religioasa sau cea de la TV?
Educatia reclamelor care spune ca un om "responsabil" trebuie sa aiva masina marca TuTu? Educatia care spune ca un om "destept" nu iese la plimpare fara opinci marca AlaBala? Sau educatia care spune ca un om e "admirat" doar daca se razuie cu marca BalaBala? Sau educatia care spune ca o femeie e de "succes" daca are cariera (sclava la companii) si daca se "lupta" cu o alta aratandu-i patronului ca poate pune inca 10 ore de munca in plus, neplatite pe saptamana si ca poate face mai bine nu stiu ce? Sau educatia care spune ca nu poti trai decat intr-o casa de 100 de camere la care trebuie sa platesti 70 de ani?
Te referi fara sa-ti dais eama la educatia TV facuta de reclame si de filme (un fel nou de reclame). Problema a inceput in momentul in care firmele au inceput sa vanda nu produse ci un stil de viata care face din utilizarea acelui produs un lucru necesar , care se invarte in jurul utilizarii unui produs. Problema e ca acest stil de viata undermina familia, societatea, etc Prin prabusirea societatii vor cadea si firmele dar pentru ca aceasta ia un timp nimeni nu se gandeste la ele.
"Si prin conditii decente nu ma refer numai la bucata
> de paine si un acoperis! "
Stiu, te referi la toate marcile fara de care e "imposibil" un trai decent. Masina TuTu, etc...
Vezi ca a fi bogat inseamna a avea multi copii .Oamenii destepti stiu asta. Stilurile de viata propuse nu isi propun sa te imbogateasca pe tine....ci pe altii.
> Spiritul de autoconservare i-mi interzice, mie cel putzin, sa mai fac
> un copil.
Incurci spiritele. E vorba de spiritul de autodistrugere. Cel de conservare spune sa ai cat mai multi copii.
> Pt ca doresc ca cel pe care i-l am sa aibe conditiile cele
> mai bune, ca sa razbata in societate. Daca as fi avut o situatie
> materiala medie sau sub medie, n-as fi avut nici un copil. Scurt si
> cuprinzator.
Am mai vorbit de asta. masina "TuTu", etc....
> Cei care vorbesc despre morala, avorturi etc. nu-si dau seama de
> realitate. Asa ceva nu a existat niciodata!
Exista cum mai mult decat oricand. Este vorba de crima si genocid.
>Rata natalitatii a fost
> in trecut mai mare deoarece propaganda statala si bisericeasca dorea
> o crestere a populatiei, datorita faptului ca gradul de
> industrializare era inexistent sau mai traziu mic(Acum 1000 de ani
> traiau aprox 23 Mio de oameni in Europa de vest si centrala. Astazi
> sunt 375 Mio!).
Rata natalitatii a fost normala si inainte de comunism pentru ca exista o educatie sanatoasa orientata spre binele societatii.
>Deci trebuiau "multi porsti" care sa
> munceasca pt cei bogati. Astazi nu numai ca nu mai e nevoie de
> prosti, si cei un pic mai destepti fac greva si nu mai vor sa se
> sacrifice pt cei care detin marea parte a bogatiilor.
> De aceea state ca si cele Europene dar si USA Canada etc, vor si au
> nevoie de migratie. cai fie vorba intre noi, cei care vin sunt mai
> "prosti".
USA si Canada au nevoie de emigratie pentru ca au pierdut un razboi neconventional. Prostii sunt prosti indiferent de popoarele de origine. Problema e alta. Industria internationala a trecut in mainile non-europenilor intr-o categorie f mare. Cei cu industria folosesc pozitiile la care au ajuns in tarile gazda pentru a ajuta la colonizarea acestora. De aici si "nevoia" de a duce prosti de aiurea. Chiar crezi ca prostii de aiurea sunt mai prosti ca prostii din Canada?
In momentul in care prostii de aiurea vor fi multi, cei (de aiurea) cu pozitii mari in industria internationala , pot opta pentru pozitii politice in tara gazda, iar colonizarea se va termina.
Afaceristii din tarile gazda vor fi atacati pe motive "de coruptie", la inceput. Politicienii la fel. Presa si TV va trece sub controlul ONG controlate de cei veniti din exterior. Dupa aceia presa va fi subordonata iar redactorii vor fi schimbati cu cei de afar pentru a aduce o viziune "moderna" asupra lumii. Vezi BBC unde exista o cota minima de redactori straini. Si tot asa.
>Si aici nu ma refer neaparat la gradul de
> inteligenta si scolarizare, ci la faptul ca au mai putina experienta
> a vietii moderne, in care fiecare trage pt. el! Ei vin cu idealuri
> din tari in care consumul era redus la un minimum, si ajungand acolo
> cred ca totul e posibil. I-si fac astfel datorii pt case, masini si
> alte bunuri pe care de fapt nu si le-ar putea permite dupa
> standardele de acolo fara sa faca eforturi prea mari,
> autotransformanduse astfel in sclavii societatii.
> Spre exemplu in Germania pretul imobilelr in anii 90 au explodat.
> Dobanzile erau la un maximum. Multi emigranti au cumparat case si
> apartamente la care plateau rate peste 50 % din venitul total al
> familiei. Nimeni nu le-a spus ca asa un pas nu se merita. Si chiar
> daca da, euforia vestului ia impins s-o faca. Dupa metoda, las ca nu
> murim de foame. In Ro a fost cu mult mai rau.
> Pana se prin ca au ajuns sclavii casei, care intre timp nici macar nu
> a crescut in valoare, ba chiar in multe cazuri a scazut, e tarziu.
> Raportat la standardul de aici, au trait greu. Au mai luat un job, au
> trimis copii sa imparte reclame etc.
> Daca nu ar fi fost ie, preturile la imobile nu urcau asa de mult. dar
> asa e, ca la armata. Bibanii fac sectoare pana ajung veterani......
Pana la urma totul se poate termina cu o Franta si alte tari trecand intr-o ordine wahabista. Asa zisii prosti sunt mai destepti decat cei ce se considera "destepti"
De la: neamtu tiganu din nemtia
Re: demografie--te contrazis.. NT
Scorilo a scris:
>
> Aici cred ca ai dreptate: a avea grija de un copil mic e echivalent cu
> o slujba cu norma intreaga, ba chiar mai mult, ca tre' sa
> "muncesti" si noaptea, ca se scoala "ala micu" si
> plange.
>
Nu se poate face o legatura intre situatia materiala si dorinta sau hotarirea de a avea copii pt. simplu fapt ca la virsta la care iei aceasta hotarire situatia financiara inca nu e stabila. Chiar daca in acel moment ambii parteneri au un job bun aceasta se poate schimba peste noapte, prin falimentu firmei sau pur si simplu prin somaj.
Unde mai pui ca unu sau mai multi copii vor aduce o gaura mare in bugetul familiei, pe de o parte prin cheltuielile suplimentare si pe de alta parte prin faptu ca mamica de regula pierde pt. o bucata de timp posibilitatea de a cistiga bani.
Deci in concluzie "afacerea" copil atunci cind e gindita economic e intotdeauna paguboasa, ramine numai sentimentul minunat de a avea pe linga casa un maimutoi, de a fi raspunzator de un om, chestie care iti umple viata.
Do domnilor, am crescut si eu intr-o familie numeroasa in Romania, iar acum ma uit ca nu pot sa am mai mult de o odrasla in Australia. Nu stiu cum o fi prin alte parti, dar cand am citit urmoatorul articol am simtit cu astia au pus degetul pe cifrele durerii. Desigur, mi-am reamintit imediat de peromaneste unde ma grabesc sa vin cu aceasta completare:
Million-dollar baby
High cost of having kids
... Case study
High cost of having kids
Corby: From the inside
Labor's Old faithful
iTunes Music Store
The tiger is dead
Death of the reefs
Whales right of passage
Society>Child care
Society>Children
Society>Economics
Society>Family
Society>Women's issues
Government>Fiscal policy
Finance>Debt
Finance>Financial planning
The figures are alarming: it now costs up to $1m to raise a child in Sydney, and the other capitals aren't far behind. Nick Tabakoff reports.
Jodie Daly reckons two’s a crowd when it comes to having kids. Sydney-based Daly, a childcare centre manager, and her husband Ken have crunched the numbers and worked out what’s best for her in the business of raising a family. The answer is dictated by finances. “We can’t have another baby until we have a budget,” she says bluntly.
Gone are the days when children were an unplanned blessing. Parents can no longer afford to remain oblivious to the financial consequences, even in a child’s first couple of years.
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello last year urged Australians to do their patriotic duty by having one baby “for your husband, one for your wife and one for the country”.
But Daly is not planning three children just yet. Despite a combined family income of “well over $100,000”, Daly says a crippling mortgage and high costs make it unviable to add to 22-month-old Cameron. “To have two children in childcare – on my salary – I just couldn’t afford it,” she says. “With the money I’d spend on getting to work, on top of having two kids in childcare, I would be spending pretty well everything I earn on childcare.”
Daly will wait “three or four years” – until Cameron is at school, or until she no longer has to work full-time – before she has any more kids.
Welcome to the economics of child-rearing. Daly is not an isolated example, but part of a growing trend in Australian society. It is clear an increasing number of families are opting to have just one child. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of babies being born is approaching an all-time low. In 2003, the fertility rate – the average number of babies a woman could expect in her lifetime – was 1.75. This is half the 3.5 rate at the height of the baby boom in 1961, and down significantly on the levels of 10 and 20 years ago.
Now a detailed analysis for The Bulletin, conducted by Paul Henman of the University of Queensland, and Trevor Breusch and Edith Gray of the Australian National University, reveals why many families are stopping at one child.
It can be summarised in one word: money. And nowhere is it more evident than in Australia’s most expensive city, Sydney.
Taking into account the absolute cost of raising children from 0 to 18 for a typical high-income family with a combined annual income of $150,000 or more, plus income sacrificed by the parent with primary responsibility for the child, the total cost of raising a first child in Sydney is, for the first time, more than one million dollars: $1,032,600, to be precise.
The figure emerges from two pieces of research: Henman’s study shows more than $607,000 in spending in Sydney on a range of child-rearing expenses, including housing, electricity, food, clothing, childcare and household goods and services until the child reaches 18. Breusch and Gray’s analysis identifies $425,000 in forgone income for university-educated parents in Sydney and Melbourne, including the short- and long-term effects of career interruption.
The costs in other capitals, while not matching Sydney’s, are nevertheless alarming: a total cost in spending and forgone income for a first child of $985,700 in Melbourne, and $850,500 in Brisbane. Henman, a sociologist and expert in the cost of children at the University of Queensland’s Social Policy Unit, comments: “We’re wealthier than we’ve ever been, and it’s more expensive to raise children than it’s ever been.”
And it’s not going to get cheaper any time soon. The incidence of children staying at home until well into their 20s is only likely to rise in decades to come, as the cost of housing and university fees continues to soar. While there is a dearth of specific figures on this phenomenon in Australia, a 2001 British study by Abbey National indicates the proportion of young adults who have not left home by age 25 is likely to double for the next generation.
The old adage that you never stop being a parent has never been more apt. These grown-up offspring, who are far more likely to return at some stage to live with their parents than before, have their own nicknames: “parasite singles”, “adultolescents” and “homebounders”.
The British study found the proportion of young adults who return home after fleeing the nest has nearly doubled: from 25% to 46%. It can add up to tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars of costs on top of The Bulletin’s figures.
Henman adds that his statistics don’t include amounts parents spend on children for one-off events, including “parental contributions to significant birthday celebrations, such as the 21st birthday, engagement parties, weddings and the child’s first car. Although unmeasured, when parents have to meet or contribute to the costs of children over 18, those costs are likely to be substantial.”
While “adultolescents” become a rising factor in later years, parents have their hands full with kids aged 0 to 18. Henman has found even families on combined incomes in the middle range of about $70,000 a year spend between $240,000 and $280,000 on direct child-rearing costs. Add to this the income sacrificed by the secondary-educated parent with primary responsibility for a child, and even middle-income families face a bill of more than $550,000 over the lifetime of their first child in Sydney and Melbourne, and between $505,000 and $533,000 in the other capitals.
The discrepancy between the cost of child-rearing in Sydney and Melbourne and the other capitals is most marked at the upper income level. Henman says his own unpublished research suggests families would need “30% to 50% more” to live in Sydney than Brisbane. He found a similar scenario for families moving from Brisbane to Melbourne. The discrepancy between Sydney/Melbourne and the other capitals, he says, is reflected in figures such as the cost of schooling. “For example, private schooling is much more expensive in Sydney than in Brisbane.”
His study takes this into account. Under the heading HGS (household goods and services), he includes school fees. Children in luxury households are assumed to attend elite private schools, and therefore the HGS figure is significantly larger in high-income families than in their middle- or low-income counterparts. The costs of a child’s schooling were calculated at $172,300 in Sydney (based on the King’s School) and $170,700 in Melbourne (based on Melbourne Girls Grammar). In Brisbane, however, the generally lower cost of private schools translated to a lower HGS figure. The cost of schooling for high-income earners there was calculated to be $120,300, based on Brisbane Boys Grammar.
The cost of education is leading some parents to plan for the future. Robert Kiddell, of McMillan Financial Planning, says many are attempting to take the sting out of high private-school costs by putting aside money in education funds. These involve annual investments for 10 years – a little extra each payment – so the school fees are not crippling when they arrive.
But Kiddell is dubious about whether these funds pay off in the long run, despite their tax advantages. “I think there are much better ways of putting aside [for a child’s education],” he says. “A lot of the money in these schemes goes to the promoter of the scheme.”
Richard Percival, deputy director of the National Centre of Social and Economic Modelling, a research centre associated with the University of Canberra, says there are no hard and fast rules on who actually spends what on education. “There’s always going to be anomalies: the people on lower incomes who are sending their kids to the best schools they can possibly afford. There are also the people on higher incomes who will spend less on schools.”
A related cost which has blown out substantially in recent years has been childcare. Henman’s study shows just how much childcare costs are affecting even middle-income households. His statistics demonstrate little difference between middle- and upper-income families. Childcare is an average $82,000 burden for the first child for middle-income earners, and only $8000 more, at just over $90,000, for higher-income earners.
Henman defines the childcare burden as the cost of supervision when both parents work, before children start school, and when a child of six to 12 years attends before- and after-school care, and school-holiday care.
It is childcare expenses that occupy the minds of even families moving towards the high-income bracket. Michael McDonald, a business IT analyst, and his wife Mara, a chef, have done what Peter Costello wants all Australians to do. They have had three kids: Reuben, 6, Noah, 3, and Dorothea, 1. Dorothea was, in McDonald’s words, “a bit of a surprise”: a blissful surprise, but one which has made the McDonalds “marginal from an economic perspective”. This despite a combined income of $120,000 a year. “We can’t take on any more commitments until we get through this expensive financial period,” he says. With a mortgage of “about $500,000” on their small semi in Sydney’s Bondi Junction, the cost of simply minding the children is prohibitive. Mara stays at home two days a week to “minimise the running around and shelling out of money”.
But it is only a minor reprieve. The cost of monthly childcare for Noah and Dorothea is $1600, even though they are cared for only three days a week. And there are additional costs for Reuben, despite the fact he is at a public school. Reuben goes to before- and after-school care two days a week – “because that’s all we can get him in for”, Michael says – which costs the family up to $200 a month.
Michael would like to send his kids to private schools, but worries about the cost burden of childcare. He comments, only half-jokingly: “It’s an option I’d like to have – when I’ve paid off my childcare debts.” To cope with the growing debt , the McDonalds have contemplated returning to Lismore in northern NSW, where Michael and Mara’s parents live, simply to eliminate childcare from the equation.
But while the family’s spending on care would be lower, and a much smaller mortgage would be possible, the McDonalds would have one significant problem: a scarcity of jobs in specialised professions in regional areas. “The issue is getting work outside the major cities,” he says.
Jodie Daly says childcare is “too expensive” even for one child full-time. She admits she is more fortunate than some: while the Dalys pay $210 for three days of childcare, her mother looks after Cameron the other two. But if they had another child, “it would become $420 a week”, which is uneconomical.
A check of day-care costs confirms why families are struggling. In Sydney, fees at some eastern suburbs day-care centres top $100 a day per child, while centres run by ASX-listed ABC Learning charge around $80. It can cost parents more than $20,000 a year per child, in the years before they start school.
While essential needs like childcare and education appear to be the major cost in raising kids, non-essentials are also helping to blow the budget for many families. In particular, spending on “leisure” items averages more than $48,000 up to age 18, according to Henman’s figures. Leisure is assumed to include the cost of toys, books, mobile phones for children over 12, attendance at cinemas and other forms of entertainment, and an annual week’s family holiday. At the high-income end, Henman says, an overseas family holiday is included every three years.
Henman believes the increased spending on leisure for children is a product of a new affluence. Marketing machines at major companies have tapped into growing incomes. “Kids used to be able to play for hours with a stick and a tin can,” he says. “Now we have companies who are able to find other things to entertain children.”
Some of the marketing campaigns have targeted children, particularly with food, brand labels for clothing and footwear, and other items such as PlayStations. But Henman notes that some corporate advertising machines are aimed squarely at adults. “With the marketing of mobile phones, they’re asking: ‘Do you know if they’re safe or not?’ and ‘Are you caring for your children enough?’”
Attempts by parents to squeeze in leisure activities, however, are an expensive exercise with young children around. Take a romantic dinner: “It becomes a whole process: it’s not just the cost of the dinner, but it’s the cost of the babysitter as well,” says Henman. This can sometimes lead to natural curbs on spending. Some couples, he says, will simply stay home and order takeaway with the children, rather than embark on an expensive night out.
While these direct costs add up, equally significant is the “lost opportunity cost” of having children. Breusch and Gray have conducted their own analysis of income sacrificed by the parent primarily responsible for a child’s upbringing. The results quantify the income surrendered by people with careers when children enter the equation. A typical university-educated woman without children in Sydney or Melbourne is assumed to earn $1.6m over a lifetime. Breusch and Gray’s analysis shows this figure could be expected to fall to $1,175,000 if the woman has one child, and just over $1m with two.
A university-educated woman outside Sydney or Melbourne would typically earn $1.38m over the course of her career until she reaches 59. However, a first child would reduce her earning capacity to just over $1m, while a second child would reduce it to $855,000.
Breusch, a senior research fellow at the Australian National University, says there are different ways in which women, in particular, find their income affected by children. “It can be factors like not going to work, working shorter hours, or taking less demanding jobs.” He says interruption to career momentum can also be a factor, with ambitions for high-powered positions shelved, and a falling likelihood of training.
Interestingly, his figures for sacrificed income are based on net earnings, which stops them being even higher: “If you were to do the calculations on gross income, the numbers would certainly be higher because they would include income tax.”
Daly’s case illustrates the “lost opportunity cost” factor. This year, she resumed full-time work only after nine months’ part-time. With a single child, she feels it may be possible to pursue a managerial role. “With one kid, you’re still reasonably portable,” she says. “But I don’t think I could take on managerial responsibilities with two kids.”
Her long-term plans for a second child may interrupt her career further. “I want to do the best job possible,” she says. “With two kids, you can’t really stay back at work till eight at night. And I had to do that a couple of times last year.”
However, Breusch stresses there are compensations for not being in the workforce: a factor which could help a family’s bottom line. “Not all of the forgone earnings for everybody is a cost,” he says. “For example, it might mean a woman is able to provide some services in the home.” Henman says most mothers in early childhood embark on a hybrid situation of part-time work and part-time childcare – saving on some childcare costs in his model, at the expense of career.
But for families in this situation, like the McDonalds, the savings are not readily apparent. Mara McDonald has attempted to defray the family’s care budget by working just three days a week, earning 60% of her previous income as a law firm chef. But her husband says it is having little effect on the family’s ever-growing expenses: “We’re finding it extremely difficult to balance the high cost of care and our mortgage.”
He has a sobering message for the Treasurer. “We are producing three children, like Mr Costello wants,” he says. “And they are so totally worth it. But we’re finding it economically damaging. We’re going backwards at the moment.”
Viitor de aur tara noastra are si prevad prin seculi a ei inaltare
"La telejurnalul retelei de televiziune RAI TRE, adica a aceleia fosta si actuala de stinga marxista, prin urmare favorabila unor tari ale fostului bloc comunist, am putut auzi consternat urmatorul semnal de alarma: Citez aproae textual: 'In 2007 Europa, primind in sinul comunitatii sale Bulgaria si Romania, va trebui sa faca fata revarsarii unei maree de sapte pina la noua milioane de tigani, liberi sa se miste peste tot pe intregul teritoriu al Uniunii.'
Este instructiv de stiut ca la doar 7 milioane de romi avem, respectind proportile (procentele) comunicate de cele doua Tari: in Romania 4,18 milioane de tigani (romi), care reprezinta 19,3% din populatia totala, in timp ce la 9 milioane, 5,38 milioane romi (tigani), adica 24,8% din populatia totala a tarii !!!
Concluzie: Unul din patru (sau din cinci) locuitori ai Romaniei sint(em) tigani! Iar asta n-o spune Jirinovschi si nici o anumita minoritate sovina apartinind etniei maghiare, ci o afirma intreaga Europa, chiar si aceea favorabila noua, prin institutiile ei, cu seninatate si fara urma de dispret!
Pentru Bulgaria, cifrele sint: minimum 2,8 milioane tigani (romi), adica 35,6%din populatia totala si maximum 3,62 milioane romi (tigani), adica 45,7% din intreaga populatie a tarii.
'dupa care citim, cu amaraciune dar fara a ne minuna, in recentele ziare romanesti (din noiembrie 2003) ca referendumul pentru validarea noii Constitutii a Romaniei s-a realizat cu aportul determinant al taranimii in mediul rural si al tiganilor la orase ...
Cu stima, Horia Ivan (Roma, 27 iunie 2004) "
vezi:
http://www.cafeneaua.com/node/view/1175
Daca calculele lu' baietu' citat mai sus sint corecte, 4-5 milioane tzigani vor parasi in urmatorii ani Romania fiindca astia (fiind traditionally itinerant people, wanderers, cum ar veni) fug de saracie. Va'zixa: 22-4 (sau 5) milioane = 17-18 milioane prin 2007-2010. Nice!
Da' nu numai tziganii se carabanesc. Cred ca e rezonabil sa contam si pe minimum 1 milion de romani emigrati. Raminem cu 16-17 milioane.
Daca azi capsunarii sint vreo 2 milioane, nu vad de ce nu ar fi 3 milioane prin 2010, din care unii vor reusi sa se stabileasca definitiv in peninsula Iberica sau in alte peninsule. Raminem cu 13-14 milioane.
Contind pe trendul negativ al 'population growth rate' (-0.11 in 2004), nu cred ca e deplasat sa credem ca vom avea, in 2010, 13 milioane cetateni romani locuind in Romania.
Adunind imigratia chineza, araba, moldoveneasca (cei deveniti cetateni romani :-))) ), hai sa contam pe 14 milioane!
Stiut fiind faptul ca, traditional, ungurii nu-si parasesc paminturile pe care s-au nascut, perspectiva unui minimum 10% populatie maghiara din total in 2010 pare rezonabila. Super!
Asa cum arata experienta ultimilor ani, ungurii se prezinta in numar mare la vot si sint uniti si disciplinati. Fiindca in cazul celorlalti alegatori lucrurile stau usor taman pe dos, fiindca recensamintele, statisticile si rezultatele alegerilor vor fi tot mai greu de trucat, un UDMR cu 15-25% parlamentari dupa redistribuire ar putea chiar forma guvernul cu un PNTCD masiv ardelenesc (mai bine i-ar zice Partidul National Roman din Ardeal fiindca, oricum, componenta istorica a PNT-ului regatzean s-a volatilizat, slava Domnului, fara urma).
Stim ca in august 1940, la data Arbitrajului de la Viena, la parafarea caruia s-a consemnat, in afara de lesinul spectaculos al lui Mihail Manoilescu (vezi nota), cedarea unui teritoriu în suprafata de 43.492 kmp, cu o populatie de 2.667.000 de locuitori (din care 56.44% români, 37,1% unguri si secui, 2,76% germani, 3,7% evrei si alte nationalitati), cei 56.44% români din zona insemnau 1,3 milioane din care circa 1.000.000 greco-catolici si aproximativ 360.000 ortodocsi.
Retineti, va rog: 1.000.000 greco-catolici doar in Ardealul cedat in august 1940!
Sperind ca greco-catolicii sa redevina cit mai curind 1.000.000 si mai mult decit atit, Partidul National Roman din Ardeal (actualul PNTCD) va putea conta pe un electorat stabil si disciplinat care sa-i permita realizarea unei coalitii sanatoase cu UDMR-ul pentru a incerca, eventual, sa puna ordine in haosul promiscuu cu iz de Fanar instaurat in cei nici 90 de ani de existentza a statului si girat cu atita... maiestrie prin intermediul unui sir de dictaturi singeroase, frizind sadismul asiatic, cum putine au fost in Europa, de fratii nostri mai slabi de minte, mai amorali si mai corupti: miticii.
In concluzie, cum zicea Bolintineanu, "Viitor de aur tara noastra are si prevad prin seculi a ei inaltare". :-)))
Si eu prevad acelasi lucru.
Si tot prin seculi... :-)))
_______
NOTA:
"Am observat întai ca este o harta romaneasca. Am desfacut-o cu nordul în jos, ceea ce m-a facut sa nu înteleg nimic. Mi-a întors-o Schmidt. Ochii mei cautau taietura de la granita de vest pe care cu totii o asteptam. Mi-am dat seama însa ca este altceva. Am urmarit cu ochii granita care pornea de la Oradea catre rasarit, alunecand sub linia ferata si am înteles ca cuprindea si Clujul ... Am început sa nu mai vad. Cand mi-am dat seama ca granita coboara în jos ca sa cuprinda secuimea am mai avut, în disperarea mea, un singur gand: Brasovul! O mica usurare: Brasovul ramane la noi.
Cand am privit în toata grozavia împartirea Transilvaniei, am înteles ca puterile care îmi erau mult slabite ma parasesc cu totul. Tabloul dinaintea ochilor s-a facut neclar, ca un nor galben cenusiu, din cenusiu, negru ...
În clipa aceea, mi-am pierdut cunostinta. Nu mai traisem o asemenea senzatie fizica decat cu 22 de ani în urma, cand o injectie cu novocaina la o operatie ma facuse sa trec pentru o clipa pe lumea cealalta, de unde mi-am revenit cu ajutoare medicale date in extremis.
Acum aveam pentru a doua oara impresia neta ca am trecut dincolo. Cineva a cerut pentru mine un pahar cu apa. Dornberg a deschis usa alergand prin multimea care umplea salile strigand: 'un pahar cu apa, un pahar cu apa...'
Peste un minut mi l-au adus. Valer Pop mi l-a dat în sila sa-l beau. Am început sa vad din nou si am avut puterea sa duc mai departe calvarul.
Mi s-au prezentat actele spre semnare. Am scos tocul meu cu cerneala verde, cu care scrisesem atatea lucruri frumoase si atatea ganduri bune pentru tara mea. Am iscalit tot fara sa mai citesc. Valer Pop citea pentru mine. De altfel, nu mai era nimic de verificat: actele erau cunoscute, harta tot asa."
(Mihail Manoilescu, Dictatul de la Viena. Memorii iulie-august 1940, Bucuresti, Editura Enciclopedica;, 1991, p. 212)
Trimiteți un comentariu