'A better off Britain'

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Only in Britain are children considered a lifestyle choice.

Why use such language?

Children themselves (i.e. the product of the parents decision) are not considered a lifestyle choice.

Making the decision to HAVE children in the first place is a lifestyle choice.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Not every thread needs to be about immigration. There is no mention of immigration in the CBI study that I can find.

Which part of my point is economic nonsense? If you're trying to suggest that society as a whole takes responsibility for enabling productive workers to work is economic nonsense then I think you're letting your dislike for my politics blinker your comments.

the topic I mentioned was productivity


you have seriously suggested that productivity could be improved by subsidising child care for people earning nearly £100,000 pa but consider the continuous increase in cheap labour as an economic irrelevance?
that is truly economic nonsense: in other circumstances you would be saying so, but you have trapped yourself in the nonsense that says the price of labour is independent of its supply

jjlandlord

Childcare is a big issue for businesses and the economy as a whole.

For businesses:
Employees who have childcare issues have obviously more absences, and are less flexible (we all know 'sorry can't attend that late meeting because I have to pick up my kid', or 'sorry I can't work that day because I haven't anyone to look after kid').

For the economy:
Obviously if half the adults with children (which is most) don't work, or even only work part time, it means a much smaller workforce and reduced opportunities for economic growth.


For people on low pay, we should consider the overall cost over the long term instead of the usual short-term petty bean counting:
If I cannot afford childcare, I will stop working, have no income and become eligible for plenty of benefits. Then, when my child starts school I will be unqualified and my CV will show nothing for the last five years: Quite hard to go back to work.
Then, I believe that stats show that children in such families have a high probability of failing themselves.

So unless the idea to issue permits to reproduce on penalty of forced abortion, perhaps that collectively subsidising childcare would pay off for everyone in the long term.


I would have thought that the BNP clique would have loved the idea of encouraging the production of more 'local' children while, at the same time, reducing the need for immigration by expanding the 'local' workforce.
I guess that that's too advanced a reasoning.

CLAPTON

jjlandlord wrote: »

Then, I believe that stats show that children in such families have a high probability of failing themselves.

actually the stats show nothing of the sort


children with stay at home mums tend to be happy high achievers

jjlandlord

CLAPTON wrote: »

children with stay at home mums tend to be happy high achievers

There are plenty such families around where I live.

However, obviously (or not, apparently) families with a stay-at-home mum with a 100k pa dad have nothing in common with families with stay-on-the-dole mums.

Otherwise, I guess Oxbridge would be advertising in the housing estates all over the country...

I should had that, being the 21st century, it can be a stay-at-home dad as well.

ukcarper

jjlandlord wrote: »

There are plenty such families around where I live.

However, obviously (or not, apparently) families with a stay-at-home mum with a 100k pa dad have nothing in common with families with stay-on-the-dole mums.

Otherwise, I guess Oxbridge would be advertising in the housing estates all over the country...

I should had that, being the 21st century, it can be a stay-at-home dad as well.

How many people who have reasonable jobs do you think stop working so they can claim benefits if they are married or in a couple they would not qualify for the dole.

jjlandlord

ukcarper wrote: »

How many people who have reasonable jobs do you think stop working so they can claim benefits if they are married or in a couple they would not qualify for the dole.

Please, read my post again, then ask any question on what you do not understand instead of throwing straw man arguments (or have you really not read anything?)

ukcarper

jjlandlord wrote: »

Please, read my post again, then ask any question on what you do not understand instead of throwing straw man arguments (or have you really not read anything?)

What does "I can't afford childcare so I will stop working have no income and become eligible for plenty of benefits" mean. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

However, obviously (or not, apparently) families with a stay-at-home mum with a 100k pa dad have nothing in common with families with stay-on-the-dole mums.

Apart from money - what's the difference?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

In large parts of the world people are giving birth to children which they know will spend a life in grinding poverty.

They aren't making lifestyle choices - you're simply seeing a mixture of biology and hope.