What is unsafe sex, though? I wouldn't consider riding my husband bareback to be unsafe, since we want kids and neither one of us has any STDs. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
Printable View
What is unsafe sex, though? I wouldn't consider riding my husband bareback to be unsafe, since we want kids and neither one of us has any STDs. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
On a global scale the UK's GDP is very impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
However...for my fellow Americans, the UK's GDP per capita is only 2/3 that of the US, to give you some sense of the UK's wealth relative to that of the United States.
I'm not sure how some of those countries are ahead of the UK and US.... Of course, they did mention health, and that moved the US 19 places back.
Quote:
Violence solves problems.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
No, sex does.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :lol:Quote:
What is unsafe sex, though? I wouldn't consider riding my husband bareback to be unsafe, since we want kids and neither one of us has any STDs.
There are more than 21 developed countries! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
Yeah; it's like you can't be a good country unless you're socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
I'm in favor of universal access to healthcare, but I would never support an NHS-style system in the USA. Ever.
All. As soon as you start taking a subset you can place your country as high or low as you like, just choose the right subset.Quote:
When you say global average ,does that include all the countries or only the 21 developed countries ?
Poverty is not being able to buy food tonight, it isn't not being able to buy trainers for christmas.
That's an empirical definition of poverty tho...a lot of poverty in the western world is relative, not empirical. If nobody can afford to buy trainers, then you don't feel as poor as you would if you were the only one on your street who couldn't afford to buy them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
But being able to buy trainers is a luxury, not a neccessity. Poverty, IMO is when you can't buy neccessities.
It's nothing to do with feeling poor, it's to do with being at risk of death.
edit> I think that's my problem with the concept of relative poverty. To me it's a miss-use of the word poverty.
What you've given is definitely a fair defintion of poverty on a global scale but when you're talking about the western world, where hardly anybody starves to death, not being able to buy trainers when all your other friends can has a deep psychological impact that can't be ignored. It may seem stupid and materialistic...in fact it is...but it's just the plain truth. If people want them badly enough they'll steal and even kill to get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Yeah, that's true.
I think you probably need to take some of the factors the report examined into account at that point too. For example, a kid whose had plenty of quality time with their parents, has a greater sense of self worth and has had some decent values instilled in them is probably less likely to steal/mug etc, even if they don't have as many material trappings.
One of the interesting things about the report is it's less about material poverty than it is about the kids own perceptions of their states. That might also answer some of the questions about how Checkoslovakia scored ahead of US and UK. It's not that they've got more, it's that we expect more and think we have a right to privelege.
Hehehe...don't I know it. I grew up in Dallas with middle-class parents but we lived in a wealthy area of town, and many of my classmates were obscenely wealthy. They had anything they wanted simply for the asking, while my brother and I got maybe one pair of designer jeans which we had to make do with until we outgrew them....a single pair of trainers....etc. To some people I suppose we would be spoiled rotten, which I don't think we were...but when you compare us to our classmates we were relatively poor. I got a car when I turned 16, but it was an old car with high mileage that my parents got for $3,000. Even in 1991 that wasn't a lot to pay for a car. My classmates, on the other hand, got brand-new Chrysler LeBaron convertibles, BMWs, those mini Chevy blazers, Mazda sports cars, etc. One girl even had a Jaguar. I had a 1987 Plymouth Sundance, which was a piece of crap even back then. It was a stick shift too, and everyone else had automatics...so they made fun of me for that too. One girl's tires were slashed and she accused me of doing it because she assumed I was jealous of her brand-new red and white Chevrolet Blazer. (I was, but I didn't slash her tires.)Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
This is why I think poverty is relative; we had plenty to eat, nice enough clothes (though not nearly as nice or as plentiful as our classmates), used cars to drive, etc. we felt deprived because those around us had so much more; it was like going to school with the kids from Beverly Hills 90210. Even when it came time to go off to uni a lot of the kids were going to expensive private universities that cost $20-$30k per year...back in 1993! I had to make do with cheap old University of Texas at Austin, which is a superior university but is still public, and therefore less good than some snotty private liberal arts college in Vermont. I got into prestigious schools like UC Berkeley and Wellesley but of course my parents couldn't pay for it. So off I went to UT and graduated with very little student debt, but wasn't grateful because I didn't get to go to Wellesley or Berkeley.
It's not that I'm spoiled; it's just that I grew up around very very rich people who never had to save up for anything and could afford anything they wanted. It's hard to explain, but when you're middle-class and have to decide between trendy clothes and going to college, you feel like ***** on someone's shoe. Unbelievable as it may sound it took me years to get over that, though I don't think I'm completely over it yet.
I think I probably made myself sound like a total a$$...like I said it's hard to explain. :blush:
It would be interesting to know precisely where these survey results came from, as there are massive regional variations within the UK. I notice that the supposed UK results are actually for England only, which is going to skew the results hugely as England is a far more urban country than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and will therefore have more inner city issues.
There's no denying that there are problems, though, and I think most of them come from the lack of a family unit. I don't necessarily even agree that it's to do with poverty as such; it strikes me that children of high-achieving parents who are both always at work are often more miserable than children from poorer backgrounds who have at least one parent with them for most of their non-school hours. The argument that people can't afford to have children with only one income isn't completely unfounded... but isn't part of the decision to have a child based on whether or not you can afford to have one? I've never understood these couples who have a child, then put them into childcare at the age of three months and effectively never see them again. What the hell was the point in having a baby in the first place? Unfortunately, because it's so prevalent in society now, it's a difficult cycle to break: the employment market is now geared to paying only half of what you need to raise a family, and if everyone waited until they could afford it on one income, they'd be childless forever.
I don't think Scotland would change the results, since Scotland has very high levels of crime and deprivation in its cities though it would be offset by free university. I don't think Wales would be much different from England (it usually isn't) and NI would probably drag the UK's average down.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
We can't afford children on TWO incomes, let alone one. It's one of the main reasons we're leaving the UK. I can't wait.Quote:
There's no denying that there are problems, though, and I think most of them come from the lack of a family unit. I don't necessarily even agree that it's to do with poverty as such; it strikes me that children of high-achieving parents who are both always at work are often more miserable than children from poorer backgrounds who have at least one parent with them for most of their non-school hours. The argument that people can't afford to have children with only one income isn't completely unfounded... but isn't part of the decision to have a child based on whether or not you can afford to have one?
They do it because they have to.Quote:
I've never understood these couples who have a child, then put them into childcare at the age of three months and effectively never see them again. What the hell was the point in having a baby in the first place?
It sounds like you're about to blame women for getting into the workplace. :lol: I've heard that argument before. :DQuote:
Unfortunately, because it's so prevalent in society now, it's a difficult cycle to break: the employment market is now geared to paying only half of what you need to raise a family, and if everyone waited until they could afford it on one income, they'd be childless forever.
Out of curiosity, when are you actually leaving?
I get asked that every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Our house is on the market, has been since mid-November. It hasn't sold yet.
The instant...INSTANT...we close on it, we are a dot on the horizon.
The stress of this is getting on top of me and it is to the point where I can't concentrate for longer than five minutes, I'm smoking 30 cigarettes a day, I'm having trouble sleeping, and I have aches and pains all over. I'm starting to get depressed.
Believe me, there is nothing I would like more than to come here and announce that we're leaving the UK for good. Someone only needs to buy our house. That's all that has to happen.
She will quote your post first and then start off with 'hehe I don't know...'
I'm assuming you've tried all sort of real estate agents and whatever 'tricks' there are to getting a house sold. It's surprising though, people are having trouble finding houses, you're having trouble selling one. Ne'er the twain shall meet. Anything to do with the 'average' UK house price which one couldn't pay off even if they lived to be 109?Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Crime figures in Scotland are significantly lower than in England as a whole (and would be even lower without Glasgow's sectarian violence). Same for Wales & NI. There are levels of deprivation in the heart of the two main Scottish cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, but nothing compared to London, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham...Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
What, someone puts a gun to their head and insists they have a child? I'm not talking about those who simply work and have children, I'm talking about those who work all day, go out with their friends every evening, spend the weekends playing golf, and leave their child almost totally in the hands of the nanny. There are also a high number of fathers who do all this while leaving their wife/partner alone with the child all the time. Again, if they have so little interest in the kid, why did they bother?Quote:
They do it because they have to.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all, and I certainly don't believe that. What I'm saying is that society now expects women to work as well as having children, so that as much as it used to be the case that women had no choice but to not work, they now have no choice but to work. I object to the characterisation of women who do stay at home with their children as being somehow inferior to women who go back to work: stay-at-home-mum versus supermum.Quote:
It sounds like you're about to blame women for getting into the workplace. :lol: I've heard that argument before. :D
It's certainly not a level playing field: you get paid allowances for childcare if you go back to work, but get nothing if you stay at home. Even if there's a full-time mother involved, young children still need a full range of activities like playschools and nurseries, which need to be paid for. Why does a family with two incomes get state subsidies for this when a family with one income has to fund it all themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Our house is both larger and cheaper than average. I don't know why it's taking so long to sell. It's very clean and we always have flowers and the smell of fresh coffee when people come to view.
The problem is really we're not in the southeast of England, where the house would sell practically overnight. We're in the crappy poor north.
No wonder you can't afford children! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
I'll have to take your word for that; it's not what I've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
I can understand your frustration there, but we won't be able to afford a nanny. No golfing weekends or nights on the lash for us.Quote:
What, someone puts a gun to their head and insists they have a child? I'm not talking about those who simply work and have children, I'm talking about those who work all day, go out with their friends every evening, spend the weekends playing golf, and leave their child almost totally in the hands of the nanny. There are also a high number of fathers who do all this while leaving their wife/partner alone with the child all the time. Again, if they have so little interest in the kid, why did they bother?
There is immense pressure on women to both stay home and go back to work. The SAHMs say you're a bad mother if you work. The working girls think you're a wimp or lazy if you don't, and most of the time you don't have a choice anyway; you have to work to pay the bills, particularly if your husband/partner decides he's had enough of responsibility and runs off with another woman, and we get stuck with the kids. Most men who walk out don't want custody; they're happy with alternating weekends of visitation. You can't win no matter what you do. Men don't, can't, and will never understand it. Being a woman sucks.Quote:
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all, and I certainly don't believe that. What I'm saying is that society now expects women to work as well as having children, so that as much as it used to be the case that women had no choice but to not work, they now have no choice but to work. I object to the characterisation of women who do stay at home with their children as being somehow inferior to women who go back to work: stay-at-home-mum versus supermum.
Hahahaha, my company doesn't pay mothers anything after their obligatory period of maternity pay. Allowances for childcare? From who? Since when? I don't know anyone with kids who isn't paying full whack for daycare, and that's £130 per child per week at the CHEAPEST places. When you're on £200 a week like some of them are, you wonder why it's worth it. If I had 2 kids, more than half my paycheck would be gobbled up in childcare costs every week. State subsidies? I don't know anybody who gets a thin dime from Grabbing Gordon Brown. I guess my friends aren't poor enough. The middle class in this country are punished severely for working in my opinion! We're being bled dry.Quote:
It's certainly not a level playing field: you get paid allowances for childcare if you go back to work, but get nothing if you stay at home. Even if there's a full-time mother involved, young children still need a full range of activities like playschools and nurseries, which need to be paid for. Why does a family with two incomes get state subsidies for this when a family with one income has to fund it all themselves?
Har har har. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
If I had kids I wouldn't be smoking, obviously.
I was about to post and say that i'm suprised that the US wasn't listed last. Then i clicked the article and see we were 20th. :lol: i guess all is right in the world after all.
There are definitely childcare allowances when there are two working parents, although I don't know how much or how worthwhile they are. I remember being extremely annoyed when they were announced, as it just seemed to be another attempt to turn every woman in the country into Cherie Blair.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Like you, we don't get any benefits or any help with anything. It's always puzzled me that Gordon Brown seems able to look at my financial/employment/family situation, and adjust his policies specifically to ensure that I pay him as much as possible while getting nothing in return. I swear it's personal.
Hahaha, I know exactly what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
What do you make of the road pricing schemes?
The problem is we're trapped in a vicious cycle. Dinky (Dual Income No Kids Yet) families can afford higher prices for houses, services, groceries etc -> inflation -> families with kids must send both parents out to work in order to have a decent life style -> inflation -> round and round we go. That's why I said earlier that we need to give a real financial incentive to a) get parents to marry each other (or at the very least, stay together) and b) get one of them to stay at home. Won't be cheap but IMO our society is going to continue to go down the pan until we start encouraging the right conditions to bring up a child in.
I'm in two minds about that. Firstly, we know that no matter what they say about using this to replace other forms of road taxation (road tax, petrol tax etc), it will actually be used in addition. Secondly, it strikes me as a little harsh to attempt to price people off the road without giving a decent alternative. We don't have a good enough public transport infrastructure to get around reasonably. I take the train to work in London, but because it leaves at 6:50am, I have to drive the ten miles to the station as there are no buses at that time. Now, if they came up with a pricing scheme that meant I was paying less because I travel when there's no traffic, fine, but I don't think they would. It's also worth bearing in mind that most people don't have a choice about when they travel. They can't tell their boss that they won't be in until 11:00 because they can't afford to travel during the rush hour...Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
That's not going to happen all the while the likes of Cherie Blair are held up as the model all women should aspire to. We all know that children are better off when brought up by a parent who can give them the attention, love and stimulation they need (well, I've never seen a report that contradicts this, although there are still people who argue the point), but the fact remains that in our society, those mothers who work are referred to as "supermums", and women are constantly told that they should aspire to have children and a full-time career - "women who have it all!!!". Even those who can afford to have one parent stay at home are often put off by the media- and politically-inspired view that this would somehow make them less of a whole person.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
This isn't a gender thing, of course, and women are as entitled to have a child and career as their menfolk are (I can't find a way to phrase that that doesn't sound patronising, but it's not meant that way). Where this happens, the husband should stay at home to look after the children, but unfortunately, househusbands get an even worse rap than housewives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
That assumes that women want to stay home with their kids, though. Some don't.
Too true; and if you think public transport is deficient in London, just think about how bad it is outside the M25. I think the government thinks that the UK is just some little universe that exists only inside the M25, and I get so sick of that. Our bus service in York is a joke; First keeps raising fares to the point where they're ridiculous. A day pass on our buses costs 3.50, which is obscene when you consider how small this city is both population-wise and geography-wise. A return ticket from our house to the city center costs a whopping 2.80, takes 35-40 minutes, but only travels 3.5 miles. You can buy weekly and monthly passes, but they only save you a little bit and we worked out that it's cheaper for us to take the car to work than it is for both of us to get on the bus. My fare would be 2.80, hubby's 3.50. Even with weekly passes totalling 27 pounds between the two of us, it's cheaper to take the car even considering the cost of ownership. (Our car is paid off.) This is all assuming that the bus actually shows up, of course. It often doesn't, and when it does it's usually late. Sometimes it's only 5 minutes late, other times it's half an hour late.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
Most working mothers I know go to work because they have to, not because the media tells them to. They don't have a choice. We won't when we have kids, not even in America.Quote:
That's not going to happen all the while the likes of Cherie Blair are held up as the model all women should aspire to. We all know that children are better off when brought up by a parent who can give them the attention, love and stimulation they need (well, I've never seen a report that contradicts this, although there are still people who argue the point), but the fact remains that in our society, those mothers who work are referred to as "supermums", and women are constantly told that they should aspire to have children and a full-time career - "women who have it all!!!". Even those who can afford to have one parent stay at home are often put off by the media- and politically-inspired view that this would somehow make them less of a whole person.
My husband says he wouldn't mind staying home to look after the nippers, but realistically he should be the one to earn a living, not me, if there's only going to be one of us working. As long as women earn less than men, men are going to have to go earn the bread. When we get equal work for equal pay, we can talk about deciding who gets to stay home.Quote:
This isn't a gender thing, of course, and women are as entitled to have a child and career as their menfolk are (I can't find a way to phrase that that doesn't sound patronising, but it's not meant that way). Where this happens, the husband should stay at home to look after the children, but unfortunately, househusbands get an even worse rap than housewives...
Sorry to tell ya but women on average are always going to make less money than men, simpley because women can do less entry level jobs than men. And before anyone getts all in an uproar about that sexist statement. Tell me how many chicks you know that can throw cinderblocks or pack lumber or move concrete or hold on to a jackhammer or work in extremly unsanitary conditions all day 5 days a week? That eliminates women from more than half of the work forces management positions because there is no entry level for them. Sorry, guys who busted their arse as a manual laborer and worked their way up the chain are not going to work for someone who skipped the hard part and came in to a high paying position without bustin their ballz. That is why women aren't hired and whe they are they make less. Make the company less money because of a unmotivated team, you get paid less.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Pffft, ridiculous. Women make less than men do in all sectors and in practically every position. In I.T., this is especially true. Tell me, how does having a vagina put me at a disadvantage when it comes to programming a database?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
You cannot honestly be serious when you say that it's OK for women to make less in general simply because they don't often take jobs in construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
No, I did not say construction. I said physical labor jobs and related jobs. Those jobs make up a large enough portion of the job market to skew the average towards men even if women make 1/3 more in the white collar sector. In IT this is not especially true, and if it is what you have been exposed to then you are working for the wrong company or there is something wrong with you. I would say letting emotions take control and spouthing off about your vagina rather that reading what I wrote and taking an open minded objective look at it is why you make less. I have been in the IT industry for over ten years and every company that I have been exposed to the women and male counterparts make equivalant $$
I will also add out of 53 resume's I recieved while hiring a developer recently, only 2 were from women.
You've been lucky, then; I've never worked for a company that paid equally for equal work.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I don't buy the manual labor argument...sorry.
I can see it, although I don't know if it's enough to tip the scale. I work in a small factory, many people here have worked their way up through the ranks. A female wouldn't be able to because the actual work is too physically demanding.
You need rugged men like me for that :pounds chest:
Hilary Swank can :thumb:
Fair enough, Hilary Swank could do it. :thumb::thumb:
i noticed we're not even on the list .. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
otherwise i might comment more .. :D
I've never worked at a company that paid equally for equal work either. However, they all paid by position and ,say, a mid level programmer "position" pays mid programmer salary regardless of the sex of the employee currently filling that position. All of the companies I've worked for do their resource funds allocation by position, not by Sex. I know personally when I am working out my quarterly budgets and allocate funds to add another position, the thought process is, "I have 50,000 to pay a junior programmer so I will add a new position to my staff, not " I have 40,000 to pay a junior female programmer and 50,000 to pay a junior male programmer". 99% of the time in my experience, the allocation of funds for a position is set at least 2-4 months before that position is even filled, and at the time the position is created no one usually knows who the hell is going to fill that position let alone weather or not they are male or female.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
You can choose to not by the manual labor argument but it is a statistical fact. There is sexual discrimination(for good reason mind you) in the labor sector and the labor sector is large enough to skew the numbers of male to female income to always point to males making a higher income.
Also, if you are not making as much as your male counterparts, find another job. Descrimination in the white collar world is not the norm any more and your working for asholes.
I agree with about half of what MB said (everything in that last post), but I'm curious about that "working their way through the ranks" bit. Now, I realize that I've lived the cushy intellectual life, but I was wondering how many people worked their way up from blue collar? I know of only one person in our agency who did that. As for the rest of us, we generally did some kind of odd physical job for summer work while we were in school, but we were all focused on science as a career. Once out of college or grad school, we got jobs as techs or biologists (I'm a fish squeezer, in case anybody didn't know). While the jobs I have had have included tough manual labor in tough conditions, they couldn't be considered blue collar (perhaps....wet collar...or muddy collar).
In grad school the ratio was slanted towards female (and they're all hot, by the way, this is an AWESOME field), and in my first job out of grad school, the ratio was roughly even. Now that I'm with a hook and bullet agency, the staff is predominantly male, but I don't know why that is.
We do hire by position, though, and everybody gets paid by their title, so there's no discrepancy: pay sucks for all, which is ok, because the job is well above average.
Well, it's bound to be a bit of a distraction, isn't it? Frankly, I'm surprised the ladies can get any work done at all. :bigyello:Quote:
how does having a vagina put me at a disadvantage when it comes to programming a database?
Errm, I almost afraid to ask but what does that involve?Quote:
I'm a fish squeezer
There's alot of studies that confirm that women are still earning less than Men but I suspect it's less to do with being paid less for the same position as not being able to get into the same positions. Particularly in 'City' jobs like finance and investments which are traditionally very well paid. If you look at the statistics for the number of people working on the boards or investment departments of banks (or the boards of any other companies) you'll see only a tiny proprtion of female employees.
Strangely (and I really can't explain this) women also seem to be far less successful at setting up companies that go on to become industry giants, it always seems to be men who do that. The businesses women set up generally seem to top out as cottage industries (with a few notable exceptions).
I think that is actually part of the plan. You're going to be paying more if you travel in the rush hour. I suspect this will tend to lead to more staggered working hours as some companies move there day forward or back an hour or so to relieve the pressure on their employees. It might actually work quite well. Alot of it depends on whether the government introduce complimentary measures such as public transport improvements, though. And the cynical part of of me says they won't because public transports a cost while road pricing is an income. I strongly suspect it will quickly become just another revenue stream.Quote:
Now, if they came up with a pricing scheme that meant I was paying less because I travel when there's no traffic, fine,