We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Stop Bloody Moaning!!!
Comments
-
But to suggest that someone born to a poor and uneducated single mother in a deprived inner city area has "the same start in life" as a child born into a stable and affluent middle class home in a good area is plain wrong.
Rubbish. In every way that matters, both have the same chances. Both will be educated by the state, both have access to the NHS, to the same universities, and the same jobs market.
There is no conceivable excuse for the person born to the single parent to fail other than through them choosing to.
What's truly weird, of course, is that we have people in the UK arguing as you do, and also arguing that we should not discourage young single teenagers from having children if they choose...0 -
No what you have just said is rubbish and why bring single parents into it. What makes you think that people who can see that the environment and upbringing that a child has can impact on their future believe that single teenagers should not be discouraged to have children.Rubbish. In every way that matters, both have the same chances. Both will be educated by the state, both have access to the NHS, to the same universities, and the same jobs market.
There is no conceivable excuse for the person born to the single parent to fail other than through them choosing to.
What's truly weird, of course, is that we have people in the UK arguing as you do, and also arguing that we should not discourage young single teenagers from having children if they choose...0 -
Rubbish. In every way that matters, both have the same chances. Both will be educated by the state, both have access to the NHS, to the same universities, and the same jobs market.
No they don't. For the simple reason that people differ.
Seems you lost your working class background somewhere on the escalator called life.0 -
Genetics are relevant in the sense that you can only work with what you are born with.
Of course they matter to an individual but don't explain single nations rise and fall. The genetics of the UK are no different to anyone else's.
If it's just luck that explains the UK's recent ability to compound human capital the genetics aren't the good fortune we're looking for.0 -
Rubbish. In every way that matters, both have the same chances.
Only if their parents grant them those chances.
A 1 year old cannot make their own decisions.
Neither can a 3 year old, or a 5 year old and so on. Their choices are dictated to them by their parents. They only have access to the things you have described if their parents grant them that access and provide them the means of taking advantage.
What you are saying is utterly ridiculous.0 -
Rubbish. In every way that matters, both have the same chances. Both will be educated by the state, both have access to the NHS, to the same universities, and the same jobs market.
There is no conceivable excuse for the person born to the single parent to fail other than through them choosing to.
What's truly weird, of course, is that we have people in the UK arguing as you do, and also arguing that we should not discourage young single teenagers from having children if they choose...
The research showing that childhood upbringing / environmental factors have a huge impact on life chances is extensive and not disputed by anyone with any credibility. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be true that the most reliable predictor of a child's future income is the income of their parents. After all, if everyone had "the same opportunities" any childhood disadvantage would be levelled out by this equality of opportunity.
But of course, this isn't the case. The child of a more affluent / stable parent has all sorts of advantages over the child of a poorer or less capable one. They're likely to go to a better school, have better role models, a phsical home environment better suited to doing homework etc, and have less potentially damaging social influences.
Later on, their family / social networks may provide opportunities for career development not open to someone from a poorer background, and they will be more able financially to take advantage of opportuinities such as unpaid work placements. It's also important to realise that nowadays, the tuition fee regime means that a lot of potential students from relatively poorer backgrounds may consider going to University a financial risk that they cannot take. That would certainly be true of me if I was 18 now coming from my background, yet 20 odd years ago I was able to enjoy a University education. To bring the thread back on topic, tuition fees are actually a good example of how one of the things that made this country so great (genuinely pretty much universal access to higher education for students bright enough) is gradually being stripped away.
Most of the above is pretty much universally recognised among academics and policymakers of all political persuasions (the tuition fee comment is of course much more contentious), soit shouldn't need stating. To dispute it's basic truth, someone would of course either have to have very narrow life experiences, or be a troll, an idiot, or a sociopath. Further debate with someone in any of those categories (the limited life experience is probably the only "legitimate" reason for holding such views) is probably a waste of time, so I'm going to leave it there. Happy to let you have the last word on this one, not tha it will add any value imho.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Only if their parents grant them those chances.
A 1 year old cannot make their own decisions.
Neither can a 3 year old, or a 5 year old and so on. Their choices are dictated to them by their parents. They only have access to the things you have described if their parents grant them that access and provide them the means of taking advantage.
What you are saying is utterly ridiculous.
You're right that there isn't an equality of opportunity in the UK but there's sufficient that repair work can de done if we 'choose' rubbish patents.
Getting poor parents in the UK might mean, at worst, you'll be in the top 10% of the planet's wealthiest humans.
We're not very good at acknowledging just how many breaks we do get in this country.0 -
It's also important to realise that nowadays, the tuition fee regime means that a lot of potential students from relatively poorer backgrounds may consider going to University a financial risk that they cannot take. That would certainly be true of me if I was 18 now coming from my background, yet 20 odd years ago I was able to enjoy a University education. To bring the thread back on topic, tuition fees are actually a good example of how one of the things that made this country so great (genuinely pretty much universal access to higher education for students bright enough) is gradually being stripped away.
I've got to disagree with this. Because of the repayment structure the only risk is with the taxpayer of the student not earning enough in future to pay back what it has cost to provide university education. I actually think the current system is the fairest it has ever been in that anyone from any background can get a university education if they are academically capable.0 -
I've got to disagree with this. Because of the repayment structure the only risk is with the taxpayer of the student not earning enough in future to pay back what it has cost to provide university education. I actually think the current system is the fairest it has ever been in that anyone from any background can get a university education if they are academically capable.
I agree the cost of university eduction is not the barrier it at first appears to be but never the less it might put some people off. But the damage is done a long time before going to university.0 -
You're right that there isn't an equality of opportunity in the UK but there's sufficient that repair work can de done if we 'choose' rubbish patents.
Getting poor parents in the UK might mean, at worst, you'll be in the top 10% of the planet's wealthiest humans.
We're not very good at acknowledging just how many breaks we do get in this country.
It gets a little silly when no one can make a point as you come back with "your still better off than someone somewhere else".
I was responding to someones point. I wasn't making a point about how well off a child is / isn't compared to another part of the world.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards