tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post5615615133442273202..comments2024-03-04T16:39:30.609+13:00Comments on Lindsay Mitchell: Other people paying for your choice is not freedomLindsay Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-12782461087656285672007-02-28T15:19:00.000+13:002007-02-28T15:19:00.000+13:00What people don't consider is that if a young coup...What people don't consider is that if a young couple decide to have children and the mother stay at home (most likely) and looks after the children and receive WFF then she runs the risk of a bleak future.<BR/><BR/>For example, once the children are grown and moved out of home and her husband leaves her (divorce or death) then she has little in marketable skills in get into the workforce.<BR/><BR/>Thus women will be trapped into low paying jobs compared to women who had children and returned to the workforce as soon as possible.<BR/><BR/>I think WFF is an anti-woman policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-45360348801263005652007-02-25T12:38:00.000+13:002007-02-25T12:38:00.000+13:00There is also a hidden side to this. When the chil...There is also a hidden side to this. When the children are older and the mom wants/needs to go back to work she has lost her skills and her position on the 'coporate' ladderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-59093429595835818192007-02-25T08:07:00.000+13:002007-02-25T08:07:00.000+13:00Paying for the stupid choices of others- like her...Paying for the stupid choices of others- like here, paying for what is 'Fashionable'!<BR/><BR/>http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/search/label/teenage%20pregnancyOswald Bastablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11828229103486326473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-91343314867881577672007-02-24T16:25:00.000+13:002007-02-24T16:25:00.000+13:00Peterhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/3967611a11.htmlPeter<BR/><BR/>http://www.stuff.co.nz/3967611a11.<BR/>htmlLindsay Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-37052956464245474972007-02-24T14:33:00.000+13:002007-02-24T14:33:00.000+13:00Is the article online somewhere?Is the article online somewhere?peteremcchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02675527971846060507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-34131398716832922782007-02-24T13:58:00.000+13:002007-02-24T13:58:00.000+13:00I completely agree. In the newspaper article, the...I completely agree. In the newspaper article, the paper considered only her side of the transaction - the next financial impact on her (working making her something like $50 better off). If they had also considered the taxpayer side (her working, making the taxpayer probably more like $1500 better off, if I remember the details correctly; being a reduction in welfare to her, plus an increase in tax paid by her), then the story would seem even more shocking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com