The first major study into the Conservatives’ controversial shake-up of childcare has revealed that nursery staff are often doing more “crowd control” than education, because of the increased number of children they are looking after.
This isn’t school nor university. It is crowd control. Some frun with crayons while Mummy’s a power skirt.
True enough Tim. It’s just another version of the servant problem.
Because of the farcical way free nursery places are given out, its sometimes while the non working mum goes to the pub for day drinking.
It would be divine to stop those who don’t need the benefit from receiving it. Or summat.
Women shouldn’t be working outside the home when they have small children to raise.
I obviously agree with you, Steve.
Of course I’m a bloke!!
Bboy – Remember the old economic saw that we won’t get rich doing each other’s washing?
Getting women to work, so they can pay other women to raise their children, is an expensive way of doing each other’s washing.
Swanny,
“It would be divine to stop those who don’t need the benefit from receiving it. Or summat.”
Here’s a thought: you earn a ton of dough working, YOU, not other people pay for YOUR nursery costs. They’re your fucking kids. This nonsense just puts a thumb on the scale and encourages women to go to work when it would be more profitable for them to be at home.
Steve,
“Getting women to work, so they can pay other women to raise their children, is an expensive way of doing each other’s washing.”
To me, it’s mental. OK, I get that some power bitch running a hedge fund will pay much poorer women to raise the kids, or Thatcher having her career. But most women just don’t earn that much more. You’ve got to pay for management, maintenance etc etc.
Then you get the other costs – hiring a cleaner, spending more on takeaways or eating out because you don’t want to come home and cook, running a second car. Some women are earning a couple of quid an hour, net. Is that really worth it? The coffee in the office isn’t that good.
Crowd control has the benefit of scale as long as the regulations allow a sufficiently high child to adult ratio. It can make us richer when a person looks after more than one person’s children.
Andy – It can make us richer when a person looks after more than one person’s children.
Or… just shag your wife more than once, so she has multiple of your offspring to raise.
Y’know, like God told us to. GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY was an order, not a joke.
WB – To me, it’s mental. OK, I get that some power bitch running a hedge fund will pay much poorer women to raise the kids, or Thatcher having her career. But most women just don’t earn that much more. You’ve got to pay for management, maintenance etc etc.
I know some great professional women, highly capable and energetic people, who spend the vast majority of their hard-won income on childcare. Doesn’t add up, especially now that Labour are coming to steal the crumbs the Tories used to let us keep.
After 40 years of that, I don’t think many women will be wishing they spent more time in the office.
I get the impression that it isn’t just at nursey level, either
There’s a conspiracy theory I’ve heard which goes that it was made fashionable and high status for women to go out to work and unfashionable, low status and “letting the side down” to stay at home and look after your children.
The result was to increase the size of the labor force (not quite double it, since women still don’t work as often as men) and therefore *lower the wages that could be asked for*.
This had the consequence though that women had fewer children, so the native labor force was starting to tighten up again.
This is when it was made fashionable and high status to be in favor of unlimited immigration.
The result being again, increasing the size of the labor force and therefore lowering wages.
The problem with immigration is that the high wage workers are generally not amenable to being replaced. Most of the immigrants coming in are semi-skilled at best. This is fairly unsurprising.
One becomes highly skilled by working in demanding jobs in a fairly good area. If you’re already in that situation you’re unlikely to emigrate. The result is that the emigrants are the ones who can’t make a go of it where they are. I.e., unskilled or semi-skilled at best. Or they have a glut of “educated” people with no jobs for them (there’s a lot of “engineers” coming out of China and Africa, but I’m not impressed by their schooling).
The question is (and here is where the conspiracy comes in) who made it fashionable? Was it the companies (socialists favor this, when they’re forced to acknowledge the reality of the situation)?
Or was it the media and academia due to influence from the Soviets? And after the Soviets fell, the influence operation continued on its own, having forgotten or suppressed its origin?
What Steve said. And I’m not a bloke!
I mean, if mum die stayed at home and raised her own offspring, what terrible effect on the economy would result? Fewer Karens to staff HR?
I disagree. I certainly know quite a few from London who have emigrated and it wasn’t necessarily the financial aspect that was the driving force. Some quit for Australia in essence for slightly improved salary, but far better weather. Others, went to Dubai to earn about the same salary, but higher costs, balanced by zero taxation and better weather.
They have all decided that there is greater personal utility by emigrating for more (post tax) cash, better weather and/or better lifestyle, all of which are a balance.
Some simply decided that instead of working in the UK until they dropped, they could take their current savings to a 3rd world country like Thailand and essentially retire there and then (the delights of places like Pattaya and seedier parts of Bangkok may also be a factor for older single or divorced males).
Personal utility is a very subjective thing, it ain’t just about money.
Steve said:
“just shag your wife more than once, so she has multiple of your offspring to raise”
Don’t push it. This is the HR Karen type we’re talking about here; even once shows an impressive level of patriotism.
Women shouldn’t be working outside the home when they have small children to raise.
So true, Steve. And any woman with an IQ under 115-120 (which is 3 out of 4 women) should not be working in any professional capacity…
There may be some benefits. (I’m in a contrarian mood.)
Children of immigrants who do not speak English in the home learn English.
Children learn that other children exist and they are not the centre of the universe.
Children whose parents are so feckless that they haven’t been potty trained get potty training.
er… that’s it.
Thank you, Julia. I think stay at home wives have the better deal, compared with the go-out-and-earn husbands, but I don’t begrudge them it. Women are better suited to dealing with children than men are. I try my best, but often they just need a cuddle from Mummy.
Selling women the fiction of “careers” was quite a cheeky one. 99% of us don’t have careers, we have jobs which we hate.
Richard – Smoke me a kipper, I’ll be back for breakfast.
Theo – Idk about IQ, do people in Mensa look like they get a lot? Retards live kick-ass lives, these days. They can be airline pilots or presidents or Foreign Secretary.
Children whose parents are so feckless that they haven’t been potty trained get potty training.
My first reading of that was that it was the parents who hadn’t been potty trained. Then on second
thoughts, given the seemingly increasing volume of adult on-street defecation, that is the case.
M,
“There’s a conspiracy theory I’ve heard which goes that it was made fashionable and high status for women to go out to work and unfashionable, low status and “letting the side down” to stay at home and look after your children.
The result was to increase the size of the labor force (not quite double it, since women still don’t work as often as men) and therefore *lower the wages that could be asked for*.”
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. I think there’s been an explosion in mass media which has led to a lot less localism about women’s aspirations, and they’re now seeing rich, successful role models which they are aspiring to be.
The problem is that no-one is telling them the whole story. Like how committed successful businesswomen are. Or how rare someone gets to be in a girl group. Or how much authors who aren’t called Rowling earn. Or how many women in some fields are backed up by family wealth.
@Steve – “Getting women to work, so they can pay other women to raise their children, is an expensive way of doing each other’s washing.”
You need to earn £28,160 so that you can pay someone 40 hours per week of minimum wage (£23,795.20) due to the rest being taken in income tax and NI. So it’s expensive for the individual, but a nice earner for the state.