It is like a war

dizzy_lizzie · 27 April 2007 at 7:48PM

[QUOTE Dizzy Lizzie The point I was making re: the classroom was children don't see visually 'real' money being handed over only cards, hence why they seem to have a hard time dealing with coins and money in our lessons, it seems an alien thing to them.[/QUOTE]

Ah yes ZTD I see what you mean. :doh: What do you think about the above point I was making? :think:

ZTD · 27 April 2007 at 8:04PM

dizzy_lizzie wrote: »

[QUOTE Dizzy Lizzie The point I was making re: the classroom was children don't see visually 'real' money being handed over only cards, hence why they seem to have a hard time dealing with coins and money in our lessons, it seems an alien thing to them.

Ah yes ZTD I see what you mean. :doh: What do you think about the above point I was making? :think:[/QUOTE]

Well I think there are 2 issues here.

1. The issue of "change". With every electronic transaction being exact, and not subject to change, are you teaching them something they will never use?

I'm not saying that you are, but that is something to consider. I can use a slide-rule, but I've never used one in anger.

2. The issue of "accounting". Many people on here deal with budgets at work. Budgets sometimes in the millions. Yes, because it's not something they physically "hand over", it seems like an accounting "game". That's "game" in the same sense as sending a paveway into a city centre seems like a "game".

Some people need physical "tokens" in order to visualise stuff properly, and some people don't. It's difficult to get over that hurdle, it's an inbuilt "brain" thing.

dizzy_lizzie · 27 April 2007 at 10:00PM

[QUOTE=ZTD
1. The issue of "change". With every electronic transaction being exact, and not subject to change, are you teaching them something they will never use?
QUOTE]
Well it's something they have to learn in the curriculum and I just wondered if not seeing parents use 'real' money much anymore this had caused the subject to become a bit of a stumbling block for them.
I know it's completely off the subject but when I first worked in nursery 7 years ago most of the children knew nearly all of the traditional nursery rhymes and stories. Now we're lucky if a handful know a couple of them. Just the changing face of society I think, a tenuous link to the thread.

ZTD · 27 April 2007 at 10:11PM

dizzy_lizzie wrote: »

Well it's something they have to learn in the curriculum and I just wondered if not seeing parents use 'real' money much anymore this had caused the subject to become a bit of a stumbling block for them.

Yep - undoubtedly. How many can tell the time these days - you know - clocks with hands and not digital displays saying 22:10?

How long before "change" drops off the cirriculum though?

dizzy_lizzie wrote: »

I know it's completely off the subject but when I first worked in nursery 7 years ago most of the children knew nearly all of the traditional nursery rhymes and stories. Now we're lucky if a handful know a couple of them. Just the changing face of society I think, a tenuous link to the thread.

But that's more the changing nature of social interaction. Kids now meet each other in very controlled circumstances. They are take to places like "Wacky Warehouse" in cars, where they are very carefully supervised.

It's the endless hours in the street that pass rhymes from one child to another, not 1 hour at Wacky Warehouse, then 5 hours alone in front of the TV.

Soon I guess no kid will even know "While shepherds washed their socks at night..."

Locana · 27 April 2007 at 11:26PM

This is a great thread Pobby. Very thought provoking, interesting and pretty scary at the same time.

dizzy_lizzie · 28 April 2007 at 1:30AM

ZTD wrote: »

But that's more the changing nature of social interaction. Kids now meet each other in very controlled circumstances. They are take to places like "Wacky Warehouse" in cars, where they are very carefully supervised.
It's the endless hours in the street that pass rhymes from one child to another, not 1 hour at Wacky Warehouse, then 5 hours alone in front of the TV.
Soon I guess no kid will even know "While shepherds washed their socks at night..."

:rotfl: They're sweet aren't they?

So true ZTD My children were sang nursery rhymes and lullabyes at every opportunity. (poor things)

Tv has taken over to some extent the role of the parent in some cases. Mainly due to busy schedules for both mum and dad these days. So sad.
On a lighter note one of our year 1 children, playing the part of a wise man, in our nativity play, did say 'frankenstein' for the proverbial. I thought that only happened on 'you've been framed'. But I digress...as usual.

backtomum · 28 April 2007 at 7:47AM

This is a great thread - hit the mark 100%. We have sold our house to pay off our debts and now live in rented accommodation. I am 43 with a partner and 3 children. We pay £550 rent a month. I only earn £600 per month - £50 left over!!! My partner is not a big earner and we really struggle. The relief though to have paid the debts back is immeasurable. I totally agree with you the .?@it is going to hit the fan big time sometime soon. Things have been too good for too long. My parents never had debts - we were quite poor - by today's standards certainly. Also mortgages were so hard to get back in the 1960s and 1970s. Now you can lie to buy, borrow 6 times salary etc etc. I can see a time - not in the too distant future where big deposits will be required to enable people to get mortgages - not a bad thing in my mind. Money is worthless now - in most people's eyes. I've heard people on low incomes saying "its only going for £110,000" (we are talking poxy ex-Council house in ASBO area) - madness. In fact this country has gone mad. My rant over now - feel a lot better actually.

backtomum · 28 April 2007 at 7:59AM

Mrs_Sparkle wrote: »

I agree totally consultant31. I have some family members to whom I no longer speak since they boasted to me about the benefits they receive and the loopholes that they advantage of. They were too stupid to work out that as a taxpayer I am directly subsidising their lifestyle which is more lavish than mine. I sympathise with your dad, but at least like you say we have our pride.

I'm proud to say that my days of living off the plastic are finally over but it saddens me to see the way the next generation are seeing luxury items such as designer clothes, plasma TVs, new cars etc as a necessity rather than a nice-to-have-if-you-can-afford-it. God knows how I got into such a mess- I don't own a car, don't watch TV, don't own any designer clothes... mine seems to be a hangover from when Thatcher stuffed up things for students and left us all with debts!

How I agree. I don't want to sound like a benefits basher but apart from food and utility bills practically everying else is paid for fully or partly.

School meals for 2 kids (£60 per month)
free glasses, prescriptions, dentist
Rent (you can get housing benefit)
Council Tax (Council tax benefit)
the list goes on.

My partner brings home just over £1000 a month - we get child benefit and £10 per week tax credits (for which I am very grateful) - I have 2 school aged children
I bring home £600 per month (our rent is £550 per month)
We pay for everything - and its a struggle. You are definitely better off on benefits - I have no doubts about it. But I feel more pride working and my children know its better to work for a living.

ZTD · 28 April 2007 at 10:33AM

I would point out that this is how all democracies end.

Let me paint a scenario:

There's a bunch of people in a room. There's a spread of incomes, and a spread of attitudes to saving. This means some people have fantastic wages and lots of money - some have fantastic wages and no money. Some people have low wages and lots of money - some have low wages and no money.

Then there are the people inbetween.

Someone comes along, let us call him a "politician" and says "Since this is a democracy, and you can vote for anyone you want, vote for me, and I'll take all the money off the people who have it, and distribute to those who don't." (and keep a whole shedload for myself, but you don't need to know that).

Who - when they are going to receive "free money" - isn't going to vote for that?

Of course the rich people aren't going to be happy with this, and since they're rich, they'll just leave the room. When they leave the room, the poorer people (who are employed by rich people) will lose their jobs and the politician will lose his - so he arranges for "tax breaks".

So then the majority of the money is taken from the "not rich - not poor" people and given to the poor people who spend it and give it to the rich people. Every year more is promised - whoever promises the most gets in.

You then have the situation where the rich are well off, the poor are relatively well off, and those who are in jobs but not receiving the maximum amount of benefits are "wage slaves".

The whole country is reliant on the heavy taxation of a small group of people who are growing ever poorer with every year. There are some things this group of people can do. Work only to the level of benefits that you want. Leave.

To stop people doing this, obviously the "politician" will spend a great deal off effort trying to fool them into remaining wage slaves. Not only lying about taxation and how well people are off, but trying to make people feel wanted. Eventually it will become "difficult" to leave the country.

I hope everyone can see that this process isn't sustainable - but the "politician" will have lined his pockets and be off long before the system does collapse, but collapse is quite a way off - there are things that can be done to sustain it:

Borrow - though borrow is a bit of a con, it *will not* be paid off.

And then you can just print currency, and fool people into thinking it's real money. This has a predefined road to hell - it just depends on how quickly you wish to travel there. We are already doing that - just at a slower pace.

But none of this is new. This is how Rome fell. Coin clipping, taxation, "bread and circuses". Or in our case "Happy hours and television".

NekoZombie · 30 April 2007 at 12:36PM

I heard on the radio (4) this morning that todays society is the first that doesn't really have upward mobility. This means, for example, that if you are born poor, to an uneducated family you will most likely die poor and uneducated. In the seventies, for example, it was possible to work your way up to a better life. Not so now! So much for the American dream!