'A better off Britain'

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

Firstly, children are a lifestyle choice. Secondly, even for quite low earners childcare is likely to be a beneficial choice over not working for a few years (financially speaking). The break in employment alone, on average, costs a considerable amount in lost future income.

Children aren't a lifestyle choice at all. There is a deep imperative felt by many/most people to have children.

Having children is no more a lifestyle choice than living in a house. Yes you can subsist on the streets under a blanket but it's not living: it doesn't provide the succor that we need to get through life.

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

Children aren't a lifestyle choice at all. There is a deep imperative felt by many/most people to have children.

Having children is no more a lifestyle choice than living in a house. Yes you can subsist on the streets under a blanket but it's not living: it doesn't provide the succor that we need to get through life.

Some people do feel the same about Aston Martins or holidays in Mauritius, dont expect the state to subsidise them though.

Cyberman60

Generali wrote: »

Children aren't a lifestyle choice at all. There is a deep imperative felt by many/most people to have children.

Having children is no more a lifestyle choice than living in a house. Yes you can subsist on the streets under a blanket but it's not living: it doesn't provide the succor that we need to get through life.

Do you actually believe what you write ? :rotfl:

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Children aren't a lifestyle choice at all. There is a deep imperative felt by many/most people to have children.

Having children is no more a lifestyle choice than living in a house. Yes you can subsist on the streets under a blanket but it's not living: it doesn't provide the succor that we need to get through life.

They are a lifestyle choice. The proportion of people having children is falling, the number of children people choose to have is falling and it isn't just because our genetics and fundamental needs are changing.

To claim otherwise also rather undermines your arguments in the of this thread. If having children, and thus raising children, is an inherent need for most women then perhaps we should discourage them from working in the first place so they are provided with 'the succour that we need to get through life'.

The comparison to housing really is quite a laughable one, if that really is the best analogy you can think of I suggest it highlights just how solid your position is.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

There isn't, the rub being that it costs money and where is that going to come from? Lots of people, myself included, don't think it is the governments job to subsidise what is ultimately a lifestyle choice; A party that puts spending more money on childcare in its manifesto may lose some support for it. If parents were willing, and able, to pay themselves then we'd already be seeing this kind of thing happening far more often.

I believe it's France that have a system whereby employers have to offer and pay for this sort of thing. Could be somewhere else.... Switzerland?

Now, the obvious issue that will arise here is "comsumers will have to pay for it then".

Well, maybe. But we'd need to look at the companies in these countries that offer it. Can they compete? Are their costs so much higher than their competitors?

Well no, if the C4 documentary that I watched some time back was correct. They still compete, and infact, have lower staff turnover and therefore costs as staff stay on.

The "costs will be passed on" is always the issue when dicussing anything business could do different...as if that's that and there is no other possible outcome.

But in reality, there are costs to be saved for the business, other benefits to the business such as better employer relations....and in the case of big business, they would simply have to cut their cloth accordingly, maybe reduce the dividends 0.5% that year.

The money is there, it simply reduces profits. Slightly.

Look at Google. If the perceived wisdom is that business cannot compete while offering more to their employers, google would be out of busness. As it is, it's taking over the world. They offer Creches, too.

michaels

Graham France has a permananet under class of 10+% unemployed where because of employment costs they are not productive enough to ever find employment. Is that really a model you would like to copy?

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Children aren't a lifestyle choice at all. There is a deep imperative felt by many/most people to have children.

It's still a choice, regardless of how much you want it or not.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

Graham France has a permananet under class of 10+% unemployed where because of employment costs they are not productive enough to ever find employment. Is that really a model you would like to copy?

Not neccesarily.

However, I didn't suggest we copy the entire economic model of France. So no real need for such a far reaching response to suggest it wouldn't work.

I was looking at the childcare element, which I believe they do well (though, it still miught be Switzerland who do it!!)

Generali

Only in Britain are children considered a lifestyle choice.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Only in Britain are children considered a lifestyle choice.

all over the world people manage the size of their families in the light of the social and economy circumstances and their aspirations exactly as they do in the UK