To think it is not poverty to blame.

[goneanddoneitnow]

I see in the news poverty being blamed for childrens bad behaviour and under achievement as well as for health problems.
I think it is attitudes that need changing not income.
If attitudes could be changed through education of parents and students then I think you would find that income and health will improve as a result.
If children are reaching school unable to sit still, listen, share etc, without basic skills and knowledge then what are the parents doing?
And secondly what is the point of free nursery places from age three?
Shouldn't nurseries be preparing children for school?
The majority of the wealthy are wealthy because of the time and effort their parents and family put in and the effort they them selves put in acquiring valuable skills and knowledge.
How many times have you seen big lottery winners lose it all in a few years?

my post was to christmaswishes.

CheerfulYank

yes but badly behaved under achieving rich kids have got no excuse

all of the reason above (which I didn't write - I just swiped it from the UN ) are why charities such as Oxfam no longer just "throw money" at poor people. You can go to a village in Africa and give them £1 million - but unless it doesn't mean you've lifted them out of poverty. Not unless the money is spent on sustainable and on going projects.

YOu could go into an inner city estate in the UK and give the "poor people" lots of money - but it won't change very much. It's much more complex than that.

Of course at the root at it is often money -

It's no surprise really that statistically, a middle class/higher income family will have better health, higher education levels, participate more in society and on the whole be happier.

But that's because as well as money they've had education, probably access to better health information and advice, and better all round wellbeing

sakura Sun 13-Feb-11 12:09:36

of course poverty is to blame. I live in Japan, the country with the lowest crime rate in the world. And it's not a coincidence that it has the smallest gap between rich and poor in the world either

A small but probably the most relevent post on this thread.

If you want a civilised society, you need elminate as much inequality of oportunity as possible.

On the point of no actual poverty, only relative poverty...

I always thought this was true. I'm open to being shown this is wrong but there is just so much provided in the form of free education, healthcare, endless tax credits, housing benefit, state support etc... just how can anyone be in actual 'poverty'. I've never had any experience of this, never seen it but I live in Surrey/SW London so I'm well aware that I just wouldn't know and am very interested...

Just because you can have holidays, cleaners etc that's not going to make your children better people. Whether your poor or rich what makes kids who they are is parents primarily as they are the role models who spend most time with the children then family, friend , teachers etc who define a child. Just because you throw money at them won't stop bad behaviour if your not doing the parenting teaching them good values, etc they will grow up with bad behaviour, bad attitudes and poor or rich will not stop that happening. Money or no money.

Just because you can have holidays, cleaners etc that's not going to make your children better people. Whether your poor or rich what makes kids who they are is parents primarily as they are the role models who spend most time with the children then family, friend , teachers etc who define a child. Just because you throw money at them won't stop bad behaviour if your not doing the parenting teaching them good values, etc they will grow up with bad behaviour, bad attitudes and poor or rich will not stop that happening. Money or no money.

Sakura - do you mean that being poor is an excuse?

I spend a lot of time with DS because we don't have a lot of money. I can't take him anywhere that's expensive, but we go hiking and he cooks and gardens with me. We listen to the radio and check out armfuls of library books each week. I get him open-ended toys because if I just bought him toys that did one thing, he'd be bored of them soon and we can't really afford more toys.

But. Luckily, my mother and father did these things with me, so I know to do them with DS. I know families who really do not know what to do beyond plopping their DCs in front of the television. It would never occur to them to, say, buy a fifty-cent set of watercolors and paint with them, or get a free book from the library and read. So I think it does come down to parenting, really.

I didn't say holidays and cleaners make your children better people. I said it takes the pressure off . People from a middle class background have more options than people in poverty. IN other words, there is no excuse for these kids to underachieve

Its too complex to just say its about money. I know some families who would have a reasonable standard of living if they limited themselves to, say, two children, but they go on to have six, and then wonder why they struggle to feed and clothe them.

And there are the cases described earlier where a father buggers off and doesn't pay towards raising his children- thats not a lack of money per se, because the father may very well be continuing to earn a good income- the money is there in the system, but not being used as it should.

The welfare system has rewarded people for making poor choices and has encouraged people to not take responsibity For their own lives - is it any wonder that we're now reaping whats been sown?

Fwiw, there are probably loads of us on here who COULD have gone down the poverty route if we'd made certain choices eg: if we'd had a fourth child, it would probably have resulted in our house being repossessed as I Would have either had to give up work or work at a huge loss due to childcare costs. We would then have been homeless with four young children. We decided to stop at 3. Would it have been 'poverty' to blame if we'd taken the former route? Or would WE have actually had to bear some responsibility?

CLose the income gap, reduce poverty and the crime rate will decrease, kids will have more hope for their future and society will become more cohesive

its about changing the predominant culture.

if where you live, your career path is likely to be car theif.drug dealer/ benefit claimant/ young mother/ then, it absolutley is like swimming upstream as a parent if the predominant culture all around you, friends, family, school, the whole town even - its really hard, no matter how good of a parent you are.

i moved

You see while you continue to think of poverty as purely things that money can buy - then you're going to continue to think there's no poverty in the UK.

Most of the major charities working in 3rd world countries also work in, or recognise poverty in the UK, and the effects of it. Unofrtunatley just throwing money at those people won't solve the issues.

They don't have the education, apsiration or believe that they can be something. They can't see the long term, sot he money is spent on consumer items. They feel if they pay out "for the future" that it's going to be wasted money - so why not just spend it quick and enjoy?

Several years back we were skint, totally and utterly. Yes we were poor in cash terms but we had education behind us, a belief that we could do better again, and knew that despite being poor in cash terms we could still have a voice.

If you lack those things then you can throw money at someone until they die and nothing will change. They will probably die earlier, have a lower education level and are more likely not to partcipate in political processes as they think there is no point.

THAT is poverty.

I have lived all sides no money and money and this class and that class but it is definitely nothing to do with money why children have bad behaviour and attitudes it is how different role models in children lives bring them up. The values they set.

Please tell me how many of these impoverished parents and children are in your social circle, OP?

At a guess not many or none. So your opinion is based on what - hearsay? received wisdom from a hostile media?

Sakura, you're making too much sense! There is no room to bereate the poor in what you're saying, where is the smug sense of superiority in that? No fun

indeed baroque indeed

I'm with baroque. Point well expressed.

Custardo - agree with your last post. There's the "wall in the head" that can make it really hard even for those that think they may just be able to do better.

I read an excellent excerpt from a book called "Estates: An Intimate History" by Lynsey Hanley which went into it very well.

She tells of how she wanted to do better, coming from a very "stereotypical" council estate family. She applied for college in a "nicer" area, and attended - but it wasn't without it's problems.

Baroque I agree with the comment that they don't believe they can be something. That's wht you see a lot children with no belief in themselves but why don't they? Because parents don't give them the confidence to believe they can aspire to things. Parenting has a lot to answer for. Not saying its just that simple maybe those parents were never parented properly so then it can be hard to parent their children - vicious circle. But like cheerfulyank said she was brought up well not with money and now passes this on to her children.

Baroque I agree with the comment that they don't believe they can be something. That's wht you see a lot children with no belief in themselves but why don't they? Because parents don't give them the confidence to believe they can aspire to things. Parenting has a lot to answer for. Not saying its just that simple maybe those parents were never parented properly so then it can be hard to parent their children - vicious circle. But like cheerfulyank said she was brought up well not with money and now passes this on to her children.

Baroque - I Hear what you say, and agree.
But: what is it that makes one family stop at two children because thats what they can afford, while another family go on to have 6 or more kids, and then bleat that they cant work because they cant afford childcare, that they cant afford to care for their family adequately, and that they need a bigger house ??
What is it that makes one father continue to support his children even though he's longer in love with their mother, while another father buggers off and thinks it's ok for 'the state' (ie other people ) to pick up the tab?
Do you think the answers to this always lead back to money? More investment in education/ parenting classes etc? I think its partly true, but I think there's an element which is More about a persons 'moral compass', and their innate sense of responsibility over their own life, and I'm not sure thats necessarily directly related to cash

And just to add I don't think the right thing to do would be to make it a communist country sakura!:)