Think of the GDP

At the Jobs Summit, Minister for Finance, Women and Public Service Senator Katy Gallagher reportedly said, “as a country we simply can’t afford to leave women’s talent on the shelf. If women’s workforce participation matched men we would increase GDP by 8.7% or $353 billion by 2050?.

Talked to my eldest daughter today. She takes care of her three young children while working part time, during four days a week. If it were affordable, she’d like to cut her work hours down somewhat so that she could better support her husband who works long hours and spend more time with her three children. But hold on, what about GDP?

Just think if we could get all married women with children into the full-time workforce? Import paid carers from foreign parts to do the nurturing. What a double boon for the country’s GDP.

As to migration, we need more and yet more. Yes, schools, hospitals, public transport, roads will get more stressed and crowded; yes, urban sprawl will go on increasing; yes, crime will probably rise; yes, social and cultural cohesion will likely suffer. But think of the GDP.

So, married women, when you’re feeling exhausted, frazzled and bothered, as you’re driving through heavy traffic each evening to pick up your kids from extended childcare, thankful for micro-wave ovens for quick cooking, remember also to be thankful that you’re playing your part in boosting GDP by displaying your talent. Of course, not necessarily as a senator like Ms Gallagher or corporate high-flyer who’s broken through the glass ceiling but, say, as a clerical assistant or shop assistant or nurse. You too have your part to play in the grand unfolding of economic growth and national wellbeing, so definitively measured by GDP.

22 thoughts on “Think of the GDP”

  1. Mothers are the best – don’t make them hand over their beloved children to strangers.
    Men want to work and support their families. Don’t make them redundant.


    Report comment

    22
  2. if the GDP gets bigger, it will be p*ssed away all the same as it is now

    if we want better lifestyle and quality of life, stop taing our money away and let us decide what to spend it on

    tell you what, the UN would be out of a job pretty well overnight and all the public servants who travel the world obligating the voters/taxpayers to all manner of BS


    Report comment

    21
  3. The thing is, if you look after, bring up and nurture your children, how will the state take ownership of their minds, how will the flock obediently walk into the pen…

    It’s not about the economy, it’s about destroying society from within.


    Report comment

    15
  4. I put it to you that the taxation-childcare subsidy-corporate veal fattening pen complex actually lowers GDP growth.

    No one has actually laid out where the gains come from and what the opportunity costs are (and they are legion).


    Report comment

    8
  5. I’ve got a fair bit of respect for one of the blokes at my work, he and his missus made the decision she’d stay home with the kids and he’d work. Pulls long hours and occasionally works a second job weekends, but there’s not many who do that type of household nowadays.


    Report comment

    12
  6. Typical of the left , never think through the consequences. It is the same no matter what they think the policies are to run a country eg climate change , ndis, i fact name one where the consequences are a benefit and not a cost.


    Report comment

    9
  7. min

    name one where the consequences are a benefit and not a cost.

    But they mean well.

    Actually, they mean to ensure that they and their political allies do well, and bugger the rest of us.


    Report comment

    5
  8. Imagine living in a world where policies and economic settings were structured to benefit individual employees as a whole.
    Where a single income was enough to support a family & purchase a modest house/car etc.

    Where scarcity of employees meant competition for those available.
    Where squeals of ‘we dont have enough of ‘x’ employees” was met with derision and you would be expected to train them yourself.
    Where 4 years of university was equal to 2 years of hands on apprenticeship.
    And where the Public serpents were back to being paid LESS then the public sector.

    A nation which puts its finest minds in the service of government is a nation of mongs.


    Report comment

    8
  9. I remember my parents: dad worked in the city; that, with public transport commuting, took out 11 hours of his day doing his skilled trade job earning about the average wage (I guess that was ‘male privilege’). Mum looked after we children, volunteered at our school, did community volunteering, kept house, so dad didn’t have to (because he had a grinding routine to earn our money). But every evening, after a splendid but simple dinner: always including a cooked desert, M&D could relax in front of the TV, do their hobbies, enjoy the open fire. We joined in when our homework was done. Damn the GDP, we had a great family life.


    Report comment

    21
  10. I heard Dan Andrews clip on the radio after the gabfest.

    I don’t remember the figures he gave but something like 25,000 women could be in the workforce but could not be and this was costing VIC economy serious billions. How did they come up with the number as it sounded complete BS.

    Whenever they talk about the women in the workforce it is always boosting their numbers in tradional male areas like military, emergency and mining etc. I just read last week there are more female GPs than males. They never talk about the areas where women far outnumber men. Just a few : Human Rights / Sex Discrimination type Commissions Federal and state, Civil service, University graduates, 3 female police Commisioners which far exceeds ratio of make to female in State police, nurses etc.

    Meanwhile they push for them to be frontline Fire people ! It took Qld Police 4 years to work out their 50/50 recruiting policy was a disaster. Latest Qld Police academy training balance is 80% male and I presume that is based on best person for the job.


    Report comment

    6
  11. GDP is more of an indicator of growth rather than a measurement. For example. from 1933 to 1940 US GDP averaged 4.15 per cent a year and yet the capital stock still shrank. Arthur Lewis estimated that from 1929 to 1938 net capital formation plunged by minus 15.2 per cent. Professor Robert Higgs calculated that from 1930 to 1940 net private investment was minus $3.1 billion.

    So while it is true that expanding the labour force does raise GDP it does nothing for capital formation, a fact of which the classical economists were fully aware, which is why they would have opposed mass immigration.


    Report comment

    3
  12. If women’s workforce participation matched men we would increase GDP by 8.7% or $353 billion by 2050?

    How does Gallagher figure that out?
    If “women’s workforce participation matched men” the birthrate would almost certainly decline dramatically, invalidating her claim.

    Mass immigration is a Ponzi scheme.


    Report comment

    5
  13. One of the first jobs I had, in the late 1960’s, was as Paymaster for a medium size manufacturing business in Sydney. There were several hundred employees in that business, almost exclusively males, working as machinists in the factories, and most of them were recent migrants from southern and eastern Europe.

    They were all the sole breadwinners, they had wives and children at home, and they managed to keep their households running, pay their mortgages and all the other costs associated with running families, on their fairly basic weekly wages.

    This was a different Australia of course, in those days we manufactured things here, but women were a rarity in the workforce apart from office work, teaching, and nursing. Nevertheless, I think that our GDP was much higher in those days even though most married women were stay at home Mums.


    Report comment

    8
  14. While ever the GDP calculation assumes a dollar spent by government is worth the same add as a dollar spent by business in investment, the GDP calculation is quite worthless. As Kevin Rudd discovered, it is easy to manipulate the GDP figure with massive injections of G to avoid that nasty recession word.


    Report comment

    1
  15. f women’s workforce participation matched men we would increase GDP by 8.7% or $353 billion by 2050?.

    So there you have it, sheilas. None of this “looking after the kids” bullshit. Yafta get out there and work for the greater good.

    Your betters have spoken. They know what’s best for you, and you don’t.


    Report comment

    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.