I stand to be corrected, but during the mid part of the twentieth century it was an offence for a man not to maintain his family. Does anyone know whether this is true? The offence was eventually abolished.
Possibly true.
I can't remember whether it was an offence for a man to maintain his family, but I do know that when my mum died in the 1950's my gran was made guardian of my sister and myself along with my dad, we went to live with my gran and my gran had a friend who was a magistrate who she would go to if my dad was late sending her money for us. Now whether that was because it was the law or whether it was just because my gran and the magistrate were friends I don't know.
there will never be 100% employment, some people not well enough to work will always need help, some carers claiming carers allowance will always need help, you cannot just get rid of welfare
Walfare as in the original 1946 safety net concept, and not the 2014 lifestyle choice free for all.
In 1971 only 8 per cent of children lived in lone parent households. By 2011 the proportion had risen to 26%.
Presumably this wasn't due to a tripling in the proportion of young men who abused their partners?
Simple facts are lone parents are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as two parent households. Almost on every measure their children do less well in the world in terms of educational performance and future job prospects. Sort of proves the points the OP observed - more single parents equals more kids living in poverty and ultimately being less successful in life.
martym8, it has been proven to be a myth that children from lone parent families do less well in school and at work than people with two parents. Thinking about it, all those widows and widowers children who have lost a parent due to fighting in wars or sickness or crime are now doomed to failure going by that line of thinking or is it only the children who have been abandoned by a living parent?
martym8, it has been proven to be a myth that children from lone parent families do less well in school and at work than people with two parents. Thinking about it, all those widows and widowers children who have lost a parent due to fighting in wars or sickness or crime are now doomed to failure going by that line of thinking or is it only the children who have been abandoned by a living parent?
Has it? When
There are numerous surveys that have shown that in general those from single parent households do worse - that is not to say everyone in single parent houses do badly - there are exceptions.
some people have always been wealthy and privileged, while the vast majority have struggled to eke out a crust.
In absolute terms, everyone is now better off. It's just that nowadays people are less inclined to accept their lot, and there are a lot of left wing politicians ready to deal in the politics of envy.
There are numerous surveys that have shown that in general those from single parent households do worse - that is not to say everyone in single parent houses do badly - there are exceptions.
Yes I would like to see their evidence which disproves what I have said. Because the evidence clearly is that children are more likely to have a successful future if they grow up in a two parent household.
The areas with most lone parents are almost always the most deprived as evidence of this. Clearly there are exceptions e.g. Wills and Harry but common sense dictates two hands are better than one!
Well, yes. It seems some people are trying to blame the welfare state for every ill under the sun. Anyone would think that poverty, illegitimate children and the like didn't exist before the welfare state. What a utopia it must have been in the olden days…
I'd ask you and the OP what you think the purpose of an economy actually is?
I don't think you'll get an answer out of the OP, he's never able to defend the ludicrous propositions he finds on the net and almost always runs and hides.
The welfare state was conceived and designed for an era of full unemployment and Governments that put employment at the top of economic policy.
It wasn't designed for an era where unemployment would be used by Governments as a tool to curb trade unions, and limit wage growth among the working population. A double whammy.
The welfare state was conceived and designed for an era of full unemployment and Governments that put employment at the top of economic policy.
It wasn't designed for an era where unemployment would be used by Governments as a tool to curb trade unions, and limit wage growth among the working population. A double whammy.
It's not really unemployment that is causing the issue.
It's all the other things that successive governments have brought under the umbrella of 'welfare' over successive decades.
Fancy employing someone? Don't bother to pay them well - we'll top up their wages! Fancy a large family? Go right ahead - we'll pay for it and we'll throw a large house into the bargain too! Fancy letting your second home? Just tell us what rent level you'd like to receive and we'll pay it! Are you a rich pensioner? Have a free bus pass, TV licence and a nice dollop of cash to heat your home, even if it is on the Costa Brava!
If this was an IT project, it would be called 'scope creep', but it is very effective at getting politicians elected...
The welfare state was conceived and designed for an era of full unemployment and Governments that put employment at the top of economic policy.
It wasn't designed for an era where unemployment would be used by Governments as a tool to curb trade unions, and limit wage growth among the working population. A double whammy.
The welfare system is also born of the experience of mass unemployment, and the social unity of the World wars too.
It was also the age of the strategic industries that had to be retained - and if necessary supported - to provide home produced cars, planes, energy, high technology, weapons, steel, ships and food. Those kept the country in the cutting edge areas of technology, and employed masses of people. The idea of having spare capacity, just in case, had still to be replaced by the philosophy of just not in time supply, and undermanning by design.
We now live in the age of the search for quick money globally, exporting jobs, unecessary services, ceeding technological advance to others, and importing cheap labour, goods, energy, and food. Its no wonder our population are increasingly lowly paid, many jobs are based on excess demand that tends to disolve with every crisis, our public services are inadequate , and our entrepreneurs and productive industries few and far between. Its no wonder then that our tax take is too low, and our benefits bill high.
Well, yes. It seems some people are trying to blame the welfare state for every ill under the sun. Anyone would think that poverty, illegitimate children and the like didn't exist before the welfare state. What a utopia it must have been in the olden days…
I suppose some will blame the floods on the welfare state
I never understand the idea that anyone would make an objective decision to have children because they would be better off. I doubt it is ever a very good investment except in the very long term and I would pity anyone whom makes such a choice based ion a spreadsheet
Thankfully most people do not view children as commodities
I never understand the idea that anyone would make an objective decision to have children because they would be better off. I doubt it is ever a very good investment except in the very long term and I would pity anyone whom makes such a choice based ion a spreadsheet
Thankfully most people do not view children as commodities
It makes perfect sense if infant mortality rates are high and you have to rely on your children to support and look after you in your old age. A few more decades and the latter will be true again in the UK.
It makes perfect sense if infant mortality rates are high and you have to rely on your children to support and look after you in your old age. A few more decades and the latter will be true again in the UK.
Yes that was true less than 100 years ago in the UK. I doubt it is part of the thinking these days as it relies on the family remaining close knit
Comments
Possibly true.
I can't remember whether it was an offence for a man to maintain his family, but I do know that when my mum died in the 1950's my gran was made guardian of my sister and myself along with my dad, we went to live with my gran and my gran had a friend who was a magistrate who she would go to if my dad was late sending her money for us. Now whether that was because it was the law or whether it was just because my gran and the magistrate were friends I don't know.
Walfare as in the original 1946 safety net concept, and not the 2014 lifestyle choice free for all.
Trouble is that it is not a lifestyle choice free for all. You have just fallen for the spin ;-)
Umm, that might have something to do with the Divorce Reform Act.
Being on on benefits isn't a choice for everyone, some have no choice but of course you already knew that.
Has it? When
There are numerous surveys that have shown that in general those from single parent households do worse - that is not to say everyone in single parent houses do badly - there are exceptions.
easy divorce, loss of stigma surrounding illegitimacy .... extrapolates to immense and inexorable costs of maintaining single-parent households
some people have always been wealthy and privileged, while the vast majority have struggled to eke out a crust.
In absolute terms, everyone is now better off. It's just that nowadays people are less inclined to accept their lot, and there are a lot of left wing politicians ready to deal in the politics of envy.
Yes I would like to see their evidence which disproves what I have said. Because the evidence clearly is that children are more likely to have a successful future if they grow up in a two parent household.
The areas with most lone parents are almost always the most deprived as evidence of this. Clearly there are exceptions e.g. Wills and Harry but common sense dictates two hands are better than one!
Well, yes. It seems some people are trying to blame the welfare state for every ill under the sun. Anyone would think that poverty, illegitimate children and the like didn't exist before the welfare state. What a utopia it must have been in the olden days…
I don't think you'll get an answer out of the OP, he's never able to defend the ludicrous propositions he finds on the net and almost always runs and hides.
It wasn't designed for an era where unemployment would be used by Governments as a tool to curb trade unions, and limit wage growth among the working population. A double whammy.
It's not really unemployment that is causing the issue.
It's all the other things that successive governments have brought under the umbrella of 'welfare' over successive decades.
Fancy employing someone? Don't bother to pay them well - we'll top up their wages! Fancy a large family? Go right ahead - we'll pay for it and we'll throw a large house into the bargain too! Fancy letting your second home? Just tell us what rent level you'd like to receive and we'll pay it! Are you a rich pensioner? Have a free bus pass, TV licence and a nice dollop of cash to heat your home, even if it is on the Costa Brava!
If this was an IT project, it would be called 'scope creep', but it is very effective at getting politicians elected...
Regards,
Cypher
The welfare system is also born of the experience of mass unemployment, and the social unity of the World wars too.
It was also the age of the strategic industries that had to be retained - and if necessary supported - to provide home produced cars, planes, energy, high technology, weapons, steel, ships and food. Those kept the country in the cutting edge areas of technology, and employed masses of people. The idea of having spare capacity, just in case, had still to be replaced by the philosophy of just not in time supply, and undermanning by design.
We now live in the age of the search for quick money globally, exporting jobs, unecessary services, ceeding technological advance to others, and importing cheap labour, goods, energy, and food. Its no wonder our population are increasingly lowly paid, many jobs are based on excess demand that tends to disolve with every crisis, our public services are inadequate , and our entrepreneurs and productive industries few and far between. Its no wonder then that our tax take is too low, and our benefits bill high.
Did you know that only 8% of those on out of work benefits have 3 or more children.
Or that Government spent more on in work tax credit in 2010/11 than on out of work tax credit.
Only 2.7% of families in Britain have a alcohol dependent parent, and 0.9% a drug dependent parent.
Children from middle class backgrounds are more likely to have tried alcohol by the age of 12 than children from low income homes.
1.42 million people are working part time because they can't get full time jobs.
5 million people in the UK are being paid less than the minimum wage....etc...etc
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Challenging_12_myths_and_stereotypes.pdf
There's quite a few more 'interesting' statistics in the report if anyone wants to read it.
I suppose some will blame the floods on the welfare state
Thankfully most people do not view children as commodities
It makes perfect sense if infant mortality rates are high and you have to rely on your children to support and look after you in your old age. A few more decades and the latter will be true again in the UK.
Yes that was true less than 100 years ago in the UK. I doubt it is part of the thinking these days as it relies on the family remaining close knit
I think you just found a solution for unemployment.
Get them dredging.
I've dredged a canal before.
nah, a dredger is a better thing to use
No! do you have proof ?
Again were are your figures
That sounds about right, how many employers would employ a alcoholic or drug addict ?
Yes but the report doesn't specify how much alcohol is being consumed by these children from middle class backgrounds or where. So what is your point?
and how much is that ?
DOH!! Of course they are selective considering they are challenging the MYTHS of low income families ;-)