The BBC's "Growing up poor". Poverty seen up close

John_Pierpoint

So did we not watch the useless boys?
Surely this is the bigger problem?
How many of them had had a father who was a role model?
What made any stupid young woman think that any of them were suitable to be a father of her child?

The cycle of deprivation goes on and on and will get worse - once upon a time males were valued for their strength and fighting ability - not a lot of call for either of those attributes these days.
The only way for an ill educated single teenage mother to boost her standing and income when the first child approaches 5 is to have another baby.

In China you are more or less banned from having a child before the age of 21.
In Victorian England such behaviour would mean the work house or or a short life of prostitution.

It costs someone a six figure sum to bring up a child in today's complex technological society - that requires a major effort from two parents and some input from the rest of the national "village". Just how many of these 6 will be able to offer a sensible contribution for the raising of one child let alone two or more.
Perhaps the slightly weird games designer and the young shop worker from Glasgow should get together and see if together they could live in Bournemouth and be self supporting?

aggypanthus

BertieUK wrote: »

It would have been more rewarding to have chosen a company that could have given this young lady a position after training on maybe a part-time basis. Then with her past behind her she could have grasped the chance to prove to herself that she can have a future if she was prepared to work for it.

Because although she has got onto the first rung of the ladder she has now to go and look for work, maybe the powers that be that know this young ladies full history thought that this was the best move.

Did anyone read the credits at the end? it said this young lady was now pregnant, at this point my sympathy lessened a bit, as she she is now sadly going down the "a baby will fill my life route" and give her money instead of a job. I liked her spirit

sammyjammy

N1AK wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of thing they need (well maybe not the knitting): Someone willing to take the time and put in the effort to help them see a way out and take the steps needed to get there. The sad thing is that we aren't providing that and instead write them off.

Sadly too many people think that an individual has to be perfect or never make mistakes to deserve any kind of help; others don't think anyone at all deserves it. I think that kind of view ignores both the moral failure and costs to society this causes.

This help is available for those who are open to it or who are forced to take part in it by a court etc and put in touch with the relevant agencies/charities. My mum is a volunteer advocate for the NSPCC and works with young girls (mostly those with babies) who need that extra help in life like learning to budget/pay their bills, buy suitable food, treat their children with respect and kindness. The list goes on. Mostly there is a successful outcome, maybe not what some here would consider success but one where the girl has some self respect, cares for her children so they aren't in danger and feeds them reasonably healthy food.

Saturnalia

It's tragic that for a lot of young women, getting pregnant is the easiest out. She leaves school and if she wants to go on to college, she & her family have to fund it themselves. Whereas others are leaving school and signing on. She might be under pressure from the family to get a job or leave home rather than stay in education, if they can't afford to have a non-earning adult in the house.

But even if she does go to college, is there going to be a job at the end of it? In a lot of areas, either no, or a minimum wage shop job that she could have been doing if she'd left school 2 years earlier.

So especially for those who have families that don't value education & don't aim any higher in life, where's the incentive and encouragement?

Motherhood has so much status in society and many parents don't seem to discourage girls from young single motherhood and seem delighted to be grandparents.

And that is before we get onto the benefits thing where a single mum will be housed, not pressured to find work and have enough for her & the child to live on. Which ok, isn't a huge sum of money, but compared to dole and nothing else while living with your parents (possibly well into your 20s) and unable to give them a decent amount for your keep, it certainly is.

So why wait to be a mum, if the best you can hope for while you wait is X years stacking shelves at best or signing on at worst?

It was exactly the same when I left school in 97. Almost all the girls I went to school with were pregnant by 18. The few of us who didn't were those with the academic ability and the parental support to go the uni route and get the hell out.

PaulF81

jules888 wrote: »

I thought i saw her smoking as well.

Scum. Not a good sign for poor baby.

shaggydoo

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Again that's exactly the sort of thing that welfare money should be available for, to help those who genuinely want to improve their lives but can't afford to. But our system would rather dish it out indiscriminately, often to be blown on fags, booze, and scratchcards.

Lunacy.

Fags, booze & scartchcards are all demerit goods - meaning mostly their price is all tax! So most of the "beneifts" are going full circle and ending up in the exchequer's coffers - so the cost to the tax payer may be a lot less than we think!

shaggydoo

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

It costs someone a six figure sum to bring up a child in today's complex technological society - that requires a major effort from two parents and some input from the rest of the national "village". Just how many of these 6 will be able to offer a sensible contribution for the raising of one child let alone two or more.
Perhaps the slightly weird games designer and the young shop worker from Glasgow should get together and see if together they could live in Bournemouth and be self supporting?

But half of the UK are net beneficiaries of the state so what are you suggesting?

53.4% of UK households now receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, says a latest Centre for Policy Studies report

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1760/over_half_of_uk_households_are_net_beneficiaries_of_the_state

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

GeneHunt_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It amazes me in a world that appears smaller, how some still are ignorant to poverty in terms of the world population.

They seemed very poor to me - their teeth! My God they were only 16 and their teeth were dark. The older people's teeth were terrible too and their skin - some of the mums/grans were only mid 30s and 40s. And thin - not in a California/gym way but in a "I can't afford to eat" sort of way. Poor people live 10 years less than everyone else.

And there was no wall paper on the walls - and mold everywhere.

And no flooring - no carpets, no laminate, no rugs - nothing.

They seemed poor to me.

I don't understand why you would deny they were poor?

GeneHunt_2

Saturnalia wrote: »

I moved to London when the economy was a lot better (nearly 7 years ago) and yes, there is more work available but more competition for it.

Me too (moved to London). One ruck sack and me. Best thng I ever did. They should all run let hell....

GeneHunt_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

So did we not watch the useless boys?

Not yet. Expecting that to be even more depressing!