http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6359363.stm
Wow, according to a recent UNICEF report on historical data :ehh: , the UK has the worst 'child well-being' of most every developed country.
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6359363.stm
Wow, according to a recent UNICEF report on historical data :ehh: , the UK has the worst 'child well-being' of most every developed country.
There are about 200 countries in the world.
Yes but according to Unicef, among wealthy countries (and somehow the Czech Republic is wealthy) - UK has the worst parents.
This is no surprise...you ought to see the media trying to justify it. They're either blaming it all on us (the USA) while desperately ignoring the fact that we are one place ahead of them on the table, or they're saying 'woe is us, we're below big bad AMERICA, we must really SUCK.'
The blamers are hilarious. They blame us for everything yet every other European country on the list placed ahead of us, so obviously they're able to resist our evil culture, making it the UK's fault in my eyes.
This is so good it just has to be fattening.
Yep can't say it's surprising.
If I was to blame it on anything (other than the US, it's always good to blame things on the US) I'd probably blame it on a combination of Thatcherism, where we were told that there was no such thing as society (so making money was more important than raising kids right) followed by Blairism, where we were told that the state was responsible for raising our Kids so there was no reason to pick that rather inconvenient responsibility back up.
Other than that, it is, of course, all the Americans fault (or possibly the French)
I'll tell you what I'm telling the British. The rest of Europe managed to avoid our evil influence...so why haven't you? Your children = your responsibility. Personally I'm sick of everyone blaming us for everything; it's a convenient way to avoid responsibility and it won't solve anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I was being facetious. The problem with our kids is that the last twenty years of British politics has allowed and even encouraged us to absolve responsibility for actually raising them.
We do seem to be more susceptible to American culture than the rest of Europe though. It's probably down to the shared language. Also, the 'special relationship' (i.e. you say jump, we say howhigh?)
(BTW, I am British)
I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I think it's as much cultural as anything else.Quote:
The problem with our kids is that the last twenty years of British politics has allowed and even encouraged us to absolve responsibility for actually raising them.
Susceptible, eh? Like it's a disease or something.Quote:
We do seem to be more susceptible to American culture than the rest of Europe though. It's probably down to the shared language. Also, the 'special relationship' (i.e. you say jump, we say howhigh?)
(BTW, I am British)
What the UK needs is George Butches "No Child Left Behind Plan". It gives the false sense that kids aren't failing and are learning at the very same time.
Nah, they already have those over here...they're called GCSEs and A-levels. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Maybe the UK just has lousy kids?
Nah, kids are the same everywhere...a few bright ones, a bunch of average ones, and more than a few bad apples.Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
Definitely but I think that culture come about as a result of politics. Thatcherism taught us to stop caring about society and Blairism taught us that the state knew more about how we should raise our kids than we do. This combination has made it way to easy for parents to get in the habit of blaming someone else (whether it's the schools, society, the internet, whatever you like) while failing to acknowledge that they really haven't done much for the kid themselves.Quote:
I think it's as much cultural as anything else
We've got a divorce rate through the roof, a teenage pregnancy rate that's practically medievel, more single mothers than you can shake a paternity test at and parents who think it's better to have their young child in daycare for upwards of 8 hours a day than it is for one of them to go part time. Thatcherism taught us that the last of these was acceptable and Blairism taught us that the other three were.
And if I can find the pin headed social worker that first started telling us that teenagers were really young adults I swear I'll shove a gaggle of bling encrusted, hoodie wearing, car keying, wheelie bin emtpying, OAP intimidating, brick lobbing, asbo sporting chav teenagers from Portsmouth straight up his fundament. :eek2:
Oh so true. You might want to add media degrees to the list though.Quote:
they're called GCSEs and A-levels
Get real, though; the cost of living is so obscene that how the hell can ANYONE afford to do ANYTHING part-time?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Or a degree from any of the former polytechnics. :lol:
Good question. I think we need real financial incentives for one parent to stay at home. And we need to start viewing active parenthood as a worthy vocation (so it earns NI contributions etc). That won't be cheap for the working section of the populace but I believe it's a price worth paying for the society we want.
One of the things that struck me watching newsnight last night was that in Holland (who came top) it's pratically unheard of for both parents to be working full time.
Oi, that includes mine! :lol:Quote:
Or a degree from any of the former polytechnics
I know what you mean though, it was practically impossible to actualy fail my course and some of the folks who got thirds could barely work out where the on button was.
I work with a guy with a chem degree who did not get the following rhyme:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
'Johnny was a chemist's son
But Johnny is no more
Since what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4'
Now THAT is SAD. My degree is in French. FRENCH. FRENCH! Granted, we in America have to take classes in science and math to get liberal arts degrees, but STILL! :lol: :p
In terms of chem knowledge, one could assume:
Person with chem degree > Person with French degree
In the case of my colleague, they'd be wrong!
Another time I joked about asking my husband for 1 mol of Snickers bars. The chem degree guy asked me what a mol was.
And Jesus wept....
Hang your head in shame. You don't need a degree in French, you just need to be able to shout really loud in English!Quote:
My degree is in French.
What level of degree did the chem guy get? I thought that pure science degrees in this country still had some integrity but if he's anything to go by I guess not. I only took chemistryto GCSE myself (1988 - first year of GCSEs) and got a C but even I got that rhyme (though I must admit I was uncertain enough to check the formula, just to make sure). And even a rudimentary knowledge in biology is enough to know that a mol is a small blind creature that lives in the ground and destroys lawns.
I could already speak French and I didn't know what else to study. At least I did a scientific option instead of stupid literature; I studied applied linguistics. In French.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
He got a BSc.Quote:
What level of degree did the chem guy get? I thought that pure science degrees in this country still had some integrity but if he's anything to go by I guess not. I only took chemistryto GCSE myself (1988 - first year of GCSEs) and got a C but even I got that rhyme (though I must admit I was uncertain enough to check the formula, just to make sure). And even a rudimentary knowledge in biology is enough to know that a mol is a small blind creature that lives in the ground and destroys lawns.
You're joking about the mol I hope. :lol:
I meant as in 1st, 2:1, 2:2 or third. Like I said, in my degree a trained monkey could have got a third (and I'm not sure the training would be strictly neccessary) but geting a 2:1 was actually pretty hard (only 3 awarded in my year) and a first woud be a real achievement (none of these were awarded at all). Our course seemed to be designed to cram just about everyone into a 2:2 or third.Quote:
He got a BSc.
I'd never joke about a mole. Mole infestation is a serious matter. (but I was joking, yes - I wonder what the molecular mass of a mole is...)Quote:
You're joking about the mol I hope
Hell would I know? He probably got a 2:1; he's pretty thick but it seems that everyone can get a 2:1 these days. Most of the people I hang out with over here got firsts, and there's one guy who got a starred first. Even so, firsts aren't what they were 10 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Har har har.Quote:
I'd never joke about a mole. Mole infestation is a serious matter. (but I was joking, yes - I wonder what the molecular mass of a mole is...)
<sigh> you're determined to make me feel bad today aren't you. Mind you, I scored highest in my class so :pQuote:
it seems that everyone can get a 2:1 these days
The day they start giving out starred firsts you just know they've completely devalued a qualification don't you? :rolleyes:
Nope, I'm really not. I have no idea when you got your degree, but the new graduates we've got at work are barely literate and they have 2:1s.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The starred first guy got his 20 years ago. Apparently it was the first one that uni had ever handed out. He's really smart. Way smarter than both of us put together. My hubby got a 2:1 back when they were hard to get.Quote:
The day they start giving out starred firsts you just know they've completely devalued a qualification don't you? :rolleyes:
That's actually quite worrying. I genuinely think it was quite hard to get a 2:1 when I sat my course (like I said, only 3 awarded), so if things have got devalued to the point where 2:1 is the norm then what the hell did I sweat for?Quote:
Nope, I'm really not. I have no idea when you got your degree, but the new graduates we've got at work are barely literate and they have 2:1s.
Oh well, I blame the parents.
You all missed the point of the article. ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6365123.stm
Yep, it's true. The state of education amongst our ants is terrible. I may still be missing the point though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I know what you mean. I graduated from uni in 1997 and actually had to work for my degree; kids nowadays have it so easy. Grade inflation is out of control.
Why are so many people in poverty in the UK? I thought a more leftist government wouldn't allow such a disparity between rich and poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
But from what I hear the cost of living, especially in London is insane.
Well, I don't think more people are in 'poverty' in the UK than say the Netherlands. I mean come on, let's be real here.
The report describes the 'poverty' level to be less than 50% of the medium national income. Those socialist Europeans countries have such distribution of wealth (rob the money makers so the lazy people can have $150 Nike shoes,etc) , and we have far more immigration, that its almost impossible to compare UK or the US to those nordic germanic European countries.
And the Czech Republic was like #3 or something? I see things like this and I ask what government taxation program (or social laws) was this report supposed to favor?
Somebody just wants your money and they need to scare the citizens of the UK in believing they need to be taxed more to help the kids. That's my opinion.
I wouldn't say wealth is distributed here; it's just that salaries are so stingy! The cost of living is insane and we're squeezed bone dry by fees and taxes, it's disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
UNICEF does seem to favor countries with a more socialist bent, but I agree that the UK has serious social problems that I can only see getting worse. It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't see it every day, but people here seem to be scared of their own children.
Imagine the sheer amount of problems that could be solved if only one were allowed to beat their children.
Yes, serious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
It's why I won't give money to the NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children) in the UK; they keep coming out against smacking. I'm not in favor of beating kids to a pulp, but sometimes only a smack will do. I won't raise my kids in a country where I'd be put in jail for disciplining them. It's already illegal in Scotland to smack your kids, and it's practically illegal in the rest of the UK.
Violence solves problems.
Love creates children.
No, sex does.Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
No, unsafe sex does.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Don't be fooled into thinking New labour are leftists. There social policies tend to be liberal but there economic policies are very right wing. We currently have a greater divide between rich and poor in this country than we've had since Edwardian times.Quote:
Why are so many people in poverty in the UK? I thought a more leftist government wouldn't allow such a disparity between rich and poor
There are two measures of poverty and the one we use is relative poverty. That means your in poverty if your income is substantially less than the national average. To me that's not a measure of poverty, it's a measure of economic disparity and that's something we definitely have a problem with at the moment. A real measure of poverty would be if your income is substantially less than the global average, and I suspect we'd probably score quite well on that.
When you say global average ,does that include all the countries or only the 21 developed countries ?
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