General Chat

Someone pitched a fit. All gone, deleted, never to be seen again. (Well, I can read my copy any time I like, but everybody else must go without.)

Isn't it just dreadful, and what are things coming to, when one can't post a good finger-pointing, complaining, blaming thread without having a few people come along and disagree??

When not everyone is satisfied with copy&paste from the Daily Mail, and quotations of slogans spouted by Jeremy Kyle, and thinks some actual ideas and research and facts might contribute to one's understanding of a subject, and suggest solutions to problems?

But of course we know "the rest of the world" doesn't care about such things.

Snork.


Should anyone happen to be interested in the problem of social/economic mobility -- that is, the absence thereof -- and the kinds of problems it leads to, this article is still a good start:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162616.stm



And to the impertinent maiden who asked for my choice of term for the individuals in question: I assure you it is *not* "welfare bums"!
;)

Who are you talking about Janey - impertinent maiden? Dear oh dear you do go on.

S x

A couple of highlights, for anyone who might be interested.


How about: the culture in which some people enjoy few of the benefits of membership in their society, and have no expectation that they or their children will ever find a way out of the isolation, exclusion and deprivation with which they live?

Among comparable (western, industrialized, etc.) countries, the UK has long been second only to the US in terms of what is called income disparity -- the unequal way income (and also wealth) is distributed among the population.

In the UK and the US, the top small fraction of the population receives a hugely disproportionate amount of income in the society. And the gap is growing (in virtually all countries, including the more egalitarian countries like Norway, and countries in the middle like Canada).

*Income disparity* has been shown to have important effects on things like violent crime rates -- the more unequally income is distributed, the higher the violent crime rate, generally speaking.

It isn't how *poor* you are in absolute terms -- it's how poor you are *compared to others* in your society that affects how people relate to that society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[using the Gini index to measure income equality -- the higher the number, the greater the inequality]

For example:

Japan - 24.9
Sweden -- 25
Norway -- 25.8
Germany -- 28.3
Canada -- 32.1
France -- 32.7
UK -- 36
US -- 40.8
South Africa -- 57.8

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The teenaged pregnancy rate looks to follow about the same pattern, I think.

I'd say it's hardly surprising that teenaged pregnancy (and resultant dependency on benefits) is more common in societies where there is more inequality -- a bigger gap between rich and poor.

One may think there's nothing wrong with having that kind of inequality.

But one then has to expect and accept the consequences of it, which do include more social problems than there are in more economically egalitarian societies.

It's hardly surprising that people at the bottom of that kind of income pyramid would have lower feelings of self-worth, given the lower value their society obviously places on them.

Income inequality and lack of social/economic mobility -- the ability to improve one's lot in life -- are related things.

________________________________________

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162616.stm

If top professions in Britain are tough to break into for disadvantaged children, as former UK minister Alan Milburn's report on social mobility found, is there a land of opportunity that can serve as a beacon? Yes, but it's not the US, argues University of Ottawa professor Miles Corak.

The truth is that the US sits with the UK at the bottom of the international league table of social mobility.

SOCIAL MOBILITY

TOP
Denmark
Norway
Finland
Canada

BOTTOM
France
US
Italy
UK

Miles Corak compared 12 countries, measuring the link between a child's success in the labour market and the family's economic status. A strong link equates to low social mobility.


If the UK and the US have the lowest degree of social mobility it is not only because poorer children don't get the best start in life, but also because the stakes are higher.

In both countries labour markets are more unequal than elsewhere.

What many of the Nordic countries and Canada have recognised is that the full development of a child's early years - schooling, healthcare, and socialisation - is the first and most necessary prerequisite in developing a socially mobile society.

What they also teach us is that this is only a prerequisite, not a guarantee.

The degree of fairness, openness, and equality in labour markets is also a reason some countries are at the top of the league table, while others languish so much further down.

____________________________________________

Anyone who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of the children of parents like those in issue here will be putting thought into how to give children opportunity, so they don't become parents like those.

That is what will create change.

Get the feeling you're talking to yourself?

S x

Sheesh!...I must be too thick to appreciate whatever is being said.

Now here's trouble:-))

S x

JANEY

I
MUST ADMIT

DIDNT UNDERSTAND HALF OF THAT

SO IM MORE THAN THICK AS A MILKSHAKE

Oops, SueMaid, did you want an answer??

If I did answer you, I wouldn't be talking to myself, would I? ;)


Susan## ... we'd had another of those fine threads where we're all supposed to get all outraged about those horrible, horrible people who exploit the British taxpayer by having too many children they can't support, and say "Sterilize them! Cut off their **s! Take their children away! Take their benefits away!"

Oh, and point fingers at all those bad/stupid "girls" who just can't seem to figure out how not to get pregnant.

I found it tediously ... tedious, and thought there might be one or two people who sometimes brought their hearts and minds to topics like that, and might be interested in reading/talking about some of the real causes of problems like those. Social and economic inequality, that sort of thing.

What some call the "benefits culture", others call "social exclusion" -- the fact that some people are just excluded from the real benefits of their society, like a decent education, the prospects of bettering their lot in life through access to good jobs, that sort of thing.

Well I have to say that when one of my sons was on benefits for awhile (no children) he received a letter stating that he had a duty to look for work as he was obligated to the community who supported him. He sent back a letter stating that he was part of that community and had in fact worked for a number of years before losing his job. He greatly resented being made to feel like a leper.

S x

Understandable!

Being lectured at like that ... either you're someone who has fallen on hard times and doesn't need lecturing, or you're someone who has been lectured at all their life but never given any real opportunities and who quite reaonably doesn't feel much obligation to their community at all.

....and how about the people who do strive to better themselves and find themselves "over qualified" for a number of jobs they go for. My other son left the army a year ago and found it quite difficult to find a job because his CV for so good. He changed it and got a job within a few weeks.

Would you agree Janey that there are some people who really don't want to work and are happy to stay on benefits.

S x

Deleted cos ....wrong thread wrong theme

That isn't the question, SM.

The question is: if there are people like that, which there plainly are, why are they like that?

Would you or I or most of the people who read this board make that choice? Apparently not.

Is it because we're all just so very morally superior to those other people that we would never live off society? If so, were we just born that way? Do poor people really carry the "immoral" gene?

Or is it because we prefer a better life? Would some people who are apparently happy to stay on benefits not prefer a better life too?

I grew up believing a good life was possible, if I worked for it by taking out some debt and going to school for a lot of years. (Of course, there are other ways.) I actually wasn't aiming to be well-off, just to do work I enjoyed. I lived in a society where the daughter of a secretary and a salesman could go to university and law school by borrowing, working, and getting grants and scholarships. But mainly where the daughter of a secretary and a salesman got a good enough education from the day of starting school to be able to qualify for all of that.

What if you don't grow up that way? What if you grow up in a public housing project, where everyone you know lives in public housing with parents who have little education and no jobs, and receive enough in benefits to get along? What if the schools you go to are crap, and it's obvious that no one expects you to succeed, or cares enough to give you the tools you need to do that? And all you have around you is all the rest that goes with it -- early pregnancy, single parenthood, and all that.

Where do you see people, say, delaying pregnancy and getting good educations and good jobs? Where do you see the benefits of hard work? Where do you see good prospects for yourself if you do any of that? Where do you get any idea that your society feels enough of an obligation *to you* to ensure that you aren't left behind from the day you're born?

I don't think people are born bad, myself.

Then how do we break the cycle? A friend who works in a Primary school included this paragraph in a recent email - she was on her hobby horse at the time.

**I have had a real eye opener since I've been back as I've been doing home visits with the Foundation Stage teacher. I knew their homes were small and would be untidy/poor/dirty BUT they surpassed my expectations of squalor. We've been to 21 homes out of the new intake ~ only two were definitely privately owned ~ possibly two more ~ the rest were housing association. Pride of place in most homes was a MASSIVE TV and a pile of DVDs about a metre by a metre high/wide. Not every home had enough chairs for all the family. Few had a table. There were certainly no books and very few toys for the children but then the rooms were so small there was no where to keep them. Not one house had a decent garden and they were tiny too. Very few had a man living in the home and if they did it wasn't the child's father. Lots of homes smelt badly. Lots of them on free school dinners.I have always known how rundown the area is but XX and I felt real snobs about our standards / lifestyles. It has made me quite worried about the future for this country. They really must cook proper food/ keep their homes clean/ play with their children. Surestart and other govt initiatives obviously haven't made the slightest bit of difference****

She has previously said that all year 6 children were offered free music lessons with a loan of an instrument. As it was 'free' a number of them took it up, but not one bothered or was encouraged at home to practise. This particular school was part of the initiative to provide laptops to the pupils. One mother offered to sell the laptop to the class teacher!

Jobs are scarce in this particular area, and the Benefit trap is difficult to get out of. But how do we as a Nation persuade the parents to encourage the next generation to strive for something better?

I'm no expert on it all myself -- but you start early, really early.

Quebec has been in the forefront of such efforts. There is a program to provide childcare for $5 a day for anyone who wants/ needs it (not sure how well it's being sustained these days). There is a load of early intervention with families in difficulty, through the CLSCs (local community service centres).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLSC

Well, not much info there, but basically there are 147 centres, accessible to pretty much everyone in the province.

http://www.freewebs.com/beingaparentinquebec/clscinformation.htm

"All of the units provide, if need be, nursing, nutritional and social follow-up services, including home visits and referrals to community agencies for families. Several of the units provide food supplements, e.g. eggs, milk, and oranges, during part of the pregnancy. The first contact and, often, most of the follow-up involves the nurse, who is usually perceived as less threatening than the social worker by individuals experiencing chronic psychosocial problems."

Really early -- before birth. (Which of course is late, in the life of the parents, but you know, chicken, egg ...)

http://www.cssscavendish.qc.ca/en/benevolat/clsc-rene-cassin/

"Childcare/Early Childhood Assistant: Volunteers work in a family home, interacting with a young child in order to assist a parent who is tired or overwhelmed. The parent must stay at home, but may choose do something else while the volunteer is interacting with the child. Volunteers also work in the CLSC’s infant stimulation programs.

Tender Loving Afternoons: Volunteers work in the CLSC’s infant stimulation programs, interacting with mothers and theirs babies in order to assist the person responsible for the program. These workshops are an opportunity for parents and babies to learn and share experiences with other parents."

More (in English):
http://www.cssscavendish.qc.ca/en/soins-et-services/services-aux-jeunes-et-a-leur-famille/


Early, early intervention with children and their parents.

Early childhood education is a perennial political football in Canada. The Liberal Party promises a universal scheme, they get elected and don't do it, the Conservatives get in and hand out $100 a month to everybody so they can pay for the kids' soccer league or whatever they want because we all know all parents always do what's best for their kids ...

But that's the key. School is too late.

Surestart includes some of the prinicpals covered by your CLCS, including trained volunteers who go into the homes. But of course, its not complusary, and no doubt many who might benefit aren't aware or think they are managing fine.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Preschooldevelopmentandlearning/NurseriesPlaygroupsReceptionClasses/DG_173054

PS - another paragraph add on my original post.

Janey, I agree with everything you say. Many children get their first chance at 'normality' in an approved school, where some attemptismade to teach them home skills. We had to help Mum with small tasks, and living in the country we wre all much the same with chores to do and an extremely good school to goto. My son was brought up tp to read and appreciate the world around him, said he learned more at home than at school. Working class, pay our way and help others, follow the Girl Guide laws, thats how we have lived and i can see no harm in that. Children need to learn from their parents, if the parents know nothing, how can the children learn?
I can see no way out of it.

That's why the start-early has to include the parents.

Read to your kid programs. Groups where parent-child interaction is modeled for the parents. And where the professionals have access to the parents, to apply gentle pressure and to identify families in difficulty.

I think one big thing in Quebec, for instance, is that the programs are universal. They don't just target low-income / public-housing families. The CLSCs are known to everyone and accessible to everyone, and the outreach is to the whole community.

Things are much more integrated there, it always seems. (Looked at from another angle, Quebec is one of the most bureaucratized societies I've ever seen. ;) ) For instance, treatment for young offenders is highly developed, and integrated with other services to children and families.

To my mind, it is the isolation and exclusion of families like we're talking about that is the biggest problem. The "benefit culture" isn't a culture, it's an environment, one that some kids are just shut off in.

Calling it the "benefit culture" makes it look like the creation of the people in that environment, and I just don't see it that way.

And boy, do I agree with you about "home skills". On my most recent shopping trip it occurred to me, as I found it harder and harder even to find some basic ingredients for things, in the shrinking aisles of actual things to cook, that sooner or later we aren't going to be able to buy *food*, we'll just be offered "things to eat" -- prepared, prepackaged, heat and eat.

The poorer you are, the worse your diet and nutrition, even though eating well is cheaper than eating crap, and eating well is so important for children. But it takes know-how, and once one generation doesn't get it, it's lost to the next. And unfortunately, we've had a couple of generations now that have been taught by the media that saving time is what's important, and that the fatty sugary expensive food they advertise to kids is what kids should be fed.

The same is true of other aspects of life, too -- like having expectations. If your parents had no expectation of succeeding, they're not likely to instil any in you. And without an expectation of success, you aren't likely to bother trying.

Well someone had to tempt me to post before I was going to, and I just knew it would be you Janey ( twice)...I'm taking a break for packing, but have to say I agreed with your posts on the original thread, and though you do tend to be too 'wordy' for some ( not me lol I can do 'wordy' well enough ;)) ) ,I don't think the posts were either out of place, preachy, or overlong.

It's a complex problem, which is likely to be made worse by some of the cuts in spending ( not sure but I think the 'surestart' prohgram might have been mooted as an early victim?).

From my own experience, poverty in and of itself does not alone cause the social problems , so much as a lack of 'inspiration and aspiration'... I watched a Jeremy Kyle programme this week...no! not the usual, he was in areas of deprivation trying to help organise youth groups etc...and then in an orphanage in Kenya , run by a 74 year old British woman, with local support.. the children all " infected and/or affected by HIV/Aids/....she talked of the children being given hope, education, the chance and SUPPORT to go to university ultimately... of the two groups those orphans with very little materially have the much better chance I think.

The point there is not that all should or will want to go to uni and have high flying careers, but that 'at home' someone believes in them, that someone believes they 'can do'.

It is self-perpetuating without the education ( not just academic but how to live in the world, how to make the most of it at whatever level of society) the pattern keeps repeating itself, young mums with lots of kids, perhaps looking for some indefineable 'something better' and hoping that will come with the next partner. And young men 'drifting aimlessly because they have never had an example of anything more.