[Chicon]

I nearly missed this one from my Dutch neighbour country :

Penalise educated stay-at-home women - PvdA

22 March 2006

AMSTERDAM — The Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) has proposed recovering part of the cost of study from highly-educated women who decide not to seek paid work.

MP Sharon Dijksma, deputy chairperson of the PvdA's parliamentary party, believes the punitive measure is needed to stimulate more women to join the workforce. She outlined her ideas in 'Forum', a magazine published by employers' group VNO-NCW.

"A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work - that is destruction of capital," Dijksma said. "If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at the cost of society, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished."

Link : http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...men%20-%20PvdA



Note : The Dutch Labour Party is a socialist slanted party !

[angelize56]

Good morning Chicon!

You do have to wonder why a woman would highly educate herself and then decide to stay home....but I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons...but as long as the woman isn't on government assistance...leave her alone....it's her life! Talk about intruding on a person's life!

[lighthouse]

It's entirely her perogative isn't it? More fool them really because it's a resource that the country might miss out on if they if they have a legislated disincentive. Also, how are women throwing away knowledge or ability if they decide to stay at home for a while? A socialist veiw would welcome anyone wanting to enhance their understanding of the world or develop an ability - doing as much as they can to facilitate it.

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Good morning Chicon!

You do have to wonder why a woman would highly educate herself and then decide to stay home....but I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons...but as long as the woman isn't on government assistance...leave her alone....it's her life! Talk about intruding on a person's life!

Good morning, angie !

The main reasons they choose to stay at home are children of course !
And children raised by well-educated women are more likely to be well-educated in the future !
Also, if such law is approved, the parents of highly-educated women should be repaid the amount of taxes that were spent for the education system.

[valley]

I have to think the only reason a woman would forsake her education would be for her family (although maybe some are lazy...but that doesnt make much sense if they were ambition enough to get the education in the first place). I cant imagine a government imposing penalties for that! If thats the case, then they ought to impose penalties on highly-educated people who go into treatment program for drug or alcohol addiction since they are "wasting" their education too!

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by lighthouse

It's entirely her perogative isn't it? ....

Possible !
In this case, I'm suspecting a kind of jealousy : she failed herself to graduate, she has no children, ...

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by valley

I have to think the only reason a woman would forsake her education would be for her family (although maybe some are lazy...but that doesnt make much sense if they were ambition enough to get the education in the first place). I cant imagine a government imposing penalties for that! If thats the case, then they ought to impose penalties on highly-educated people who go into treatment program for drug or alcohol addiction since they are "wasting" their education too!

Hi valley,

For once, I totally agree !

[valley]

Originally Posted by Chicon

For once, I totally agree !

Its nice to stand on common ground once in awhile, isnt it?

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by valley

Its nice to stand on common ground once in awhile, isnt it?

Surely ! I really appreciate it !

[valley]

Originally Posted by Chicon

Surely ! I really appreciate it !

me too.

[columbo]

I agree that to introduce these punitive measures after the education has been received is unfair, but in principle, I don't think it is unreasonable for a government to impose certain conditions upon a taxpayer-funded post-secondary education. When a government (really the public) pays for post-secondary education, it is as a form of societal-investment, where certain dividends are reasonably expected. Its pretty much the same idea with paying for education for immigrants; there is an expectation that doing so will benefit our society as a whole.

If we were talking about about immigrants simply getting a taxpayer-funded education then leaving the country, I don't think anyone would be expressing support for them. But in both cases, we'd be talking about individuals profiting from a system that they won't end up contributing to. So before people automatically side against the government, they should consider this: What if the next generation of young women are unable to get a taxpayer-funded education because the reserves were too heavily-drained by those who chose to take from the system, but not give back to it?

I think the answer lies in:

1) Establishing contractual-obligations, whereby people must work for a certain period of time after graduating (say, 5 years). If people choose to leave prior to the end of this 5-year term, they are expected to pay back a certain amount of the costs of their education (depending on how long they've already worked). So, say 20% of the total cost for each year; If you only work for 3 years after graduation, then you're expected to pay back 40% of the costs.

2) Develop more comprehensive programs that would allow stay-at-home moms (or dads) to work from home. Maybe offer businesses incentives to hire these people (including subsidizing their pay, tax-reduction, etc.)? I'm sure there are plenty of other creative methods to ensure the societal benefit I've been talking about (besides penalizing people).

[valley]

Originally Posted by columbo

I think the answer lies in:

1) Establishing contractual-obligations, whereby people must work for a certain period of time after graduating (say, 5 years).

What if they cant get a job? What happens if the number of jobs in their field is limited in their area so they cant get the position they want?

Also..what if the woman has every intention of having a career but accidentally gets pregnant and chooses to stay home instead? People change, plans change...

[columbo]

Originally Posted by valley

What if they cant get a job? What happens if the number of jobs in their field is limited in their area so they cant get the position they want?

Well, that is where job-placement programs come in, or job-creation programs (through the government -- like the subsidies I mentioned). I wouldn't propose penalizing people if they are unable to secure employment immediately, provided they can prove that they are looking for work.

Oops...I missed the other part of your post

Also..what if the woman has every intention of having a career but accidentally gets pregnant and chooses to stay home instead? People change, plans change...

Again, some sort of provisions can be worked out in the contract, as long as the individuals end up contributing back at some later time. I wouldn't presume this scenario to be the norm, anyways, though I can see it happening to a small portion of people.

[iltos]

the system has apparently been abused here, by both students and funding groups, but a student loan program isn't a free handout, and assures a certain deferred financial commitment to those desirious of a higher education...

i applaud anybody who seeks a higher education...at the same time, i see no reason to obligate anyone to use it in a social sense....seems to me to be a reason for the government to stay out of educational "welfare", so to speak, and simply require that the money provided for the education be a contractual obligation, to be paid back over a reasonable amount of time

[ekim68]

Originally Posted by Chicon

Good morning, angie !

The main reasons they choose to stay at home are children of course !
And children raised by well-educated women are more likely to be well-educated in the future !
Also, if such law is approved, the parents of highly-educated women should be repaid the amount of taxes that were spent for the education system.

I think it's a plus to society if a well-educated woman has well-educated children. Shouldn't
that count in the equation. And, did you check on the voting? 80% of the people who
voted think it's a bad idea.