howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this report surprised me as we hear so often wages being eaten up by childcare costs.
mind you the report does not say where all these well paying jobs will come from.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/11/free-childcare-millions-tax-mumsGuest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That's a good point: where will the jobs come from? What jobs? Unemployment goes up each day.
Especially considering that in Feb 2012 IDS (Ian Duncan Smith) will be implementing his work-placement schemes for the chronically unemployed, there will be even less vacant jobs.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that soon alex?
indeed think tanks don't always live up to their description, they always seem to base their findings on a perfect world scenario.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I find it amazing that anything could be a better than a parent spending this period of a child's development with the child.
Additionally, if anything, this is a sad reflection on the fact that if people wish to have a family and to provide for themselves (not be dependent), then it is not financially viable on the average wage.
On the flip side some people with lots of money choose to employ nannies to do the job for them. In conclusion it seems perhaps no one actually wants to spend time with their children. No wonder so many complain about the length of school holidays.
Sad really.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
been the case for many years that one average wage earner would find it very difficult, almost impossible to pay a mortgage and keep a family going.
i have always found it odd that the royal family and other wealthy people choose to have nannies then as soon as the kids are old enough pack them off to boarding school.
they usually end up as misfits, some even become prime minister.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Yes Howard, I remember my dad working all the overtime possible to pull it off. Amusingly Vic was often in as well when I used to go into his factory on a Saturday morning with my dad.
Yes interesting that those that talk of the decline of family values also play down the inequalities present in our society.
Also true about the ruling class not having the time to raise their own children. Ironically in the past they have entrusted the role of 'nanny' to the classes below their own. In which case it would seem that anyone can raise royalty.
There can be much debate about mothers/fathers being at home with the kids, but the reality is that most Mothers (and possibly Fathers) would rather be with their kids than employing others to do the job. When ours were young we took the decision to be less well off and me stay at home, and when they were marginally older I chose to go back to work but on nights as a nurse so I could fit in all my commitments. I was exhausted - worked nights, came home and cleaned, cooked, took them to and from school, helped with homework, and then went back to work. We had a few advantages - our qualifications and CVs and our clarity of purpose: they were our children and we were damn well going to take care of them! And it was worth it! We have our challenges, there have been turbulent teenage times, but overall they have had some values and morals demonstrated to them and have taken that on. Given the chance again,even with help with childcare which we would not take, we would do the same thing and work our a**es off to care for our own.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have to disagree about most parents wanting to be with their kids bern.
of course there are many dedicated parents but they are less in number than the ones that use the school as somewhere to park the kids.
ask any teacher.
Schools do serve that kind of purpose, and it is silly to think otherwise. They are places of education, but they also slot into the childcare/work zone and are a factor when parents choose work. And I don't see why they shouldn't. Why shouldn't schools provide not only academic education but also other support and education for the children in their community? There is a market for alternative services, and schools, despite what people think, are open to market forces. And why not?
I also don't see why people have kids if they won't look after them. If I didn't want to care for my children I don't think I would have had them - it was part of the deal, and one I accepted whole heartedly.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the school is still used as an escape for parents who do not go out work.
i often wonder if they ask their children what they did at school when they get home.
Ah, a different sub group, and I use the word intentionally.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The royal family want to make up for all the lost time they didn't spend with their kids. They are preparing a royal barge to sale down the Thames next year, with the whole family on it. Well better late than never!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Do the kids want to be with their parents ??!!!
Been nice knowing you :)
A good point well made....!
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#13
In the case of 0-5 year olds, yes.
In the case of other groups mentioned here, probably not.