Cost of child-care makes working pointless for all but the most well paid mothers

Loughton_Monkey

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Just as a follow-up, last night going home on the District Line (rammed) there were two toddlers who spent the entire journey standing on the back of seats, sitting on a shoulder high ledge, and running up to doors that were about to open. Mum dozed while Dad checked his smartphone, and passengers looked on in disbelief. It's not about kids being seen and not heard, it's about their being under control in public.

.. and you never have a machine gun when you need one!

I am an avid observer of parental behaviour. Rather perversely (as a 'child abhorrer') I do specifically notice 'good' children, but sadly these days they tend to be rare.

The main categories are these:

1. Just the sort of 'couldn't care' attitude outlined by your good self.

2. A variation on this, where the kid keeps escaping, running, screeching, and it's intersperced with shouting from the parent. "Come here Darren. If you don't stop you won't get an ice cream...." or other veiled threats which even the kid knows will not be carried out, and so the mayhem continues.

3. The "compass syndrome". This tends to apply in open-air pubs/restaurants, beaches, ferries etc. Here, the 3-year-old has learnt to 'walk' - or more accurately run in a straight line until it (a) falls over and cries, or (b) hits a wall/person/object. The doting parent initially protects the child by holding on, but at some stage points it in a direction [call it North]. The kid runs, screeches, falls, and then screeches louder. Mummy goes along and picks it up. Smiles at the people in that area... Receiving only 'evil eyes', the kid is then taken back, and pointed East. The same thing happens... and so on until Mummy has got what she wants. i.e. a doting, soft person saying "Ahhhh. what a lovely little child. Sweet. How old is he....."

CLAPTON

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Just as a follow-up, last night going home on the District Line (rammed) there were two toddlers who spent the entire journey standing on the back of seats, sitting on a shoulder high ledge, and running up to doors that were about to open. Mum dozed while Dad checked his smartphone, and passengers looked on in disbelief. It's not about kids being seen and not heard, it's about their being under control in public.

last time I was on a rammed district line train, it would have been impossible to run anywhere.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Why do you think that? I like children, my own and those belonging to other people, because they're fun to be around.

Liking children, wanting to look after them and being forced to do so are different things.

There was a time when we valued looking after our own children and accepted that we could live on one income while bringing up the children. Now we want all the benefits of a double income and to bring up our children. This report seems to suggest we should reappraise this viewpoint.

ruggedtoast

It seems our boomers don't like children. Well, considering how royally they've shafted the younger generation I guess that is no surprise.

PaulF81

Don't worry, we will get our own back.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It seems our boomers don't like children. Well, considering how royally they've shafted the younger generation I guess that is no surprise.

I cannot speak for the other boomers here but I do like children and most of my charitable donations go to children's charities. Taking responsibility for your own children is essential (many people these days do not get this obligation in their quest to earn enough fot luxuries). Being willing to look after your grandchildren or for that matter other people's children is a reasonable thing to do on occasions but is a choice). But being conscripted into looking after children just because we have a society based on unequal distribution of wealth is not on. When you are young you can deal with the little darlings, as you get older it requires more patience.

The solution is either for one parent to stay at home and look after their children, a sensible approach to sharing childcare between parents without the expensive red tape, or a tax regieme that subsidises childcase. Of these I prefer the latter two options.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It seems our boomers don't like children. Well, considering how royally they've shafted the younger generation I guess that is no surprise.

What has "shafted " the younger generation is the continued concentration of weath into the hands of fewer and fewer people whatever their generation. There are many post-boomers who are fairly weathy and many of my generation who are not wealthy at all.

You can blame lots of things for this increasing disparity of wealth including HPI but my view is that it has happened because those born in the 1970s and 1980s have failed to oppose unfairness in society, failed to protest about exploitative trends to low wages, poor working conditions, loss of pension rights, student loans etc. The fact that some of you now have a cause (ie attack boomers) is a good sign that your generatiion is objecting to unfairness, even if you have the wrong target.

Moby

The scandal at Staffordshire hospital occured in a place


run by the state full of very well paid doctors and decently paid nurses.



Clearly the lesson is that the state drives down standards?

Totally wrong. A lot of recent research has been done on such things as
privatisation of prisons and care homes and the exact opposite has been
shown.

How do you wish to raise the pay of care workers; increase the price of care or
use tax payers money?

Use tax payers money to pay decent salaries to people who deserve them

No, The situation is a little more complicated than the simplistic
idea that


poor pay leads people to kick and punch and neglect people in their


care.[/QUOTE

I didn't say it was simple but it is clear to all that there was something clearly wrong with the recruitment process and vetting procedures and it is evident that the company concerned were cutting corners to reduce costs.

ash28

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

As usual the Scandinavians are way ahead with their provision of child care. Some of my friends loved giving up work to bring up kids; others admitted they couldn't face spending every single waking hour in the company of children and looked forward to going back. It's good to be able to provide choice to mothers.

I don't think Britain is a nation of child haters, but we are generally afraid of making a scene in public. Which means there are a lot of people inwardly seething at bad behaviour, but not speaking up and getting more resentful.

As a Londoner I'm regularly horrified at the behaviour of small children on the Tube; swinging from the poles (right by the doors), kneeling and standing on the seats etc. It's not just that it's annoying for other passengers, it's downright dangerous given how much the carriages jerk, lurch and judder unexpectedly to an abrupt halt, and how the doors slam open and shut. The whole world is not a playground, and children do need to learn clear boundaries.

Have seen similar on flights - the last one it happened on was a transatlantic flight to London and a toddler was allowed to wander up and down the aisle. When the parents were asked to keep him in his seat they told the cabin staff "that he liked being able to run up and down the aisle".

The staff asked them about 4 times to keep him in his seat - in the end they told them what could happen to him if the plane hit unexpected turbulence.

Result - child in seat.

Graham_Devon

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Nope, I dislike kids and whoever gave kids all these rights should have to live near them! Luckily, I don't.

That would be the 50,60,70 year olds of today, then.

You can't blame the kids and the younger generation parents for the restrictions imposed on them from the generation before.

The look of sheer horror as some of the older generation rummage for their mobile to call social services if you so much drag your screaming kid out of a shop and shout at them has you feeling the whole world is watching you and you'll get a knock on the door later that day. Woe betide you if you smack them. You'll get pointed at...people will simply stop in their tracks and watch on as if it's some kind of barbaric spectacle from the roman era.

If my son is beating up another kid at school, I don't want a "quiet word" after they gently pull him to the side and get him to engage in "mediation" with the teachers. Which basically means softly softly "please don't do that, it's not nice".

I want him forcefully removed, and chucked in some sort of detention area....but alas, that's child abuse, and we, as parents, are also supposed to ask the kids politely not to do it again. A clip round the head at the school gates would have people talking for weeks!

It is difficult to strike the right balance. No one is simply naughty now, they are "troubled", and that appears to be where you have to start from in everything these days. it focuses away from what he child has done, and focuses in on why the child may have done it. We know why they did it, because they are kids, and don't know at that point how to properly control their emotions....that's constantly evolved throughout their life, but that evolution is hampered when you are held back from showing authority.