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?

fair point usualsuspect - i dont know that much about yts. maybe proper apprentiship (sic) schemes/incentives?

There is such a thing as poverty of expectation-which is a trap. I.E parents didn't get a good eduvation, neither did g/p's or extended family- therefore the expectation to any child is ' this is okay in our family' (even if 'okay' isn't really the right word)
If the child gets no encouragement or role model or experiebces to show that there IS a world out there they can succeed in- if they work hard because it gives them more choices- then they are stuck in that trap- however bright they migh thave been at the start of their life. It is just too much for a child to cope with on their own.

I know first hand. Forces family, then council house, parents manual jobs, grandparent couldn't read- but I went to a small village state primary and won a grammar school scholarship- had to go miles ona bus every day and never really fitted in-but my parents encouraged me all the time and thirt odd years later I have had a great career, earned serious money and my expectations for any of nieces/nephews etc are to work hard, find what you like and then accept you don't get anything for nothing. Ergo the harder you work- the luckier you get!

Chinese and Japanese kids are raised (no matter what they're class/background) to believe that education is the single most important thing in life.

Lots of kids in this country aren't - for many studying, doing homework, even attending school in the first place is seen as seriously uncool

Chinese do well at school? Well many Chinese don't go to school, those that live in villages don't go and certainly those without parents....my mother raises money for a local orphanage to fund child places at school. Also Chinese children have no 'thinking outside the box' skill. Perhaps the reason they do well at school is without critical thinking a child is much easier to brainwash educate.

they also have incredibly looooooooooong days and are treated like shit by teachers, it's not unusual for very small children to have things thrown at them if they don't do well....

I'd guess poor chinese children without middle class/ caring parents do well via fear.

Posie - the article was about children of Chinese origin in British schools. I guess they may experience more parental pressure but otherwise the school system is the same.

you do meet people who are positively anti further education who use the phrase 'pen pusher' negatively. inverted snobbery is a powerful thing. i know an ex marine who is a huge inverted snob. he has a decent career and then his own business and is now retired with money to spend BUT he has equipped his 3 (now adult) children with NOTHING. i don't mean financially, i mean drive, inspiration and aspiration. 2 of the 3 flit between unskilled jobs, bumped up with tax credits and the 3rd who i studied with received no support whatsoever when she was trying to better herself and improve life for her dd's and was treated as if she was wasting her time doing sdomething so futile as a vocational degree.

"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."

Sooooo wrong on so many levels. The wealthy can afford to put in this extra effort because both parents do not always have to work so one can dedicate this time, or a parent is not having to work two jobs in order to provide monetary support alone. Because of these issues, working class and poorer families cannot invest the time needed. How can you spend the adequate time when you are having to work extra long hours for little pay in order to support your family. Where would the time and energy be to then spend hours extra on the children.

If you are talking about the lack of social skills or manners on the other hand, it is a lack of education and/ or soft parenting that causes this in my opinion. If you already have a generation of not very well educated people, having children and not knowing what to instill in those children in terms of the aforementioned skills as they do not possess them themselves, then it is not hard to see why we have a lot of badly behaved kids. Throw in a lack of discipline due to overly soft parenting and viola, teenage tearaways and a high pregnancy rate. Though I hardly believe it is a money issue alone. All the rich kids I have known growing up were taking hard drugs at 14 (as they could afford it) and having indiscriminate sex. They just had the holiday homes to run away to for these activities, and the money to cover it up. Bad behaviour is not class specific.

Suntangirl I'm not having a go, just using your post :); But why's he got to 'train to be an electrician, YTS, a few modest luxuries?'
Why does he need flashcards and a trade to succeed? Why's that aspirational for the likes of us? It's not aspirational for most MN posters is it, so why should it be for us? :D

Because we've never achieved much, we mustn't make more than baby steps above our station, generation at a time?

Why can't he want to be a research scientist, go to a top uni, work towards the cure to xyz, and even have loads of immodest luxuries? Why is that so ridiculous a dream?

Why is that automatically more than he should be striving for?
Why is it unrealistic and too aspirational if we're being told have aspirations?

I am thankful, too, that I live in a rural area where a person who didn't go to college can still do well, because some people (rich and poor) aren't made for it. BIL is brilliant at figuring things out and machinery and has made a good living with it. He'd have been miserable in school. I know a lot of people who've gone into carpentry and things like that who've done really well for themselves.

Disagree.

The seriously wealthy may have the wife swanning around with time on her hands between lunching and the gym, and money to splurge on cleaners etc. But for the huge majority of people 'in the middle', real life is both parents working, and not having oodles of time.

And by your logic, the unemployed should have more time than anybody to invest in good parenting, to take their children on long walks (free) visit the library (free) or chat (free)

Statistically, children from homes where one or neither parent work, are likely to be worse off than in a home where both parents work. So clearly its not just about the time you have on your hands.

(That was to LDN)

Of course they should be top scientists if that's what they want and are good at dragon! :) But I think there need to be more opportunities for people whose skill lies elsewhere. I knew a guy who would've been excellent in a trade, and he would've loved it. But because he was "well to do" his mother wouldn't hear of it. He was going to college whether he wanted to or not. (He didn't.)

"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"

I agree Violet, its not all related to cash.

Many have children without a thought as to how they will afford them and expect the state to pay and provide a bigger property etc. Whereas, on the other side of the coin, there will be those than plan financially for children and stay within their means even if it means less children.

Same goes when relationships break down, some will simply expect the state to pay for them to stay home whilst others will work and provide for their children even if the other parents is not helping.

Children tend to get brought up with the same morals and work ethic as their children, parents have a huge responsibility in raising children and need to lead by example.

Exactly CheerfulYank there is no shame in training to be an electrician or carpenter if thats what you are good at ..there should be more vocational training I don't think it means you lack aspiration at all

Of course there are people living in poverty in the UK. That is a sad fact and no it's not a joke.

People have lived in poverty for years. It's nothing new. But certain things have changed.

My Dad's Father died when he was 2 years old. My Grandmother worked 3 jobs to keep him and his brother. They lived in a 2 up 2 down council house with an outside loo, damp and rats. Often, she went without food, feeding her sons and telling them she would eat later.....she never did. She grew her own vegetables, cooked everything from scratch and was an amazing baker. Despite this hard life she raised 2 boys to have wonderful manners and to be hardworking.

Society has broken down now. Manners mean nothing, some parents are lazy and expect things handed to the on a plate. People are allowed to live in council houses and not give a shit about the garden. I've seen gardens with grass 2 feet tall and all manners of shit dumped in it and the tenants moan when the council don't tidy it

People must have self respect. They must have a sense of pride in what they have, even if it's very little. Until we get this back, as a society we are going nowhere.

Wealthy people are often wealthy because of luck and circumstance. I'm not disputing they don't work hard, but lots of unwealthy people work hard too.

What a load of old bollocks.

(not talking about the last post btw).

I am not too young, I am in my 40s.
I see very poor families every working day. Proper poor, living in one room. I have just had to do a call round to find some toys for a baby I work with. The family do not have the money to provide the child with what he needs. I see it all the time. They are not feckless, bad parents.

I agree that bad behaviour is not down to poverty but then I dont think that poor children are any more badly behaved than better off ones. But society has demonized working class children and lablled them feral.

They are not. Some are.

Middle class children are just as likely to be rude and surly. You just dont see them on the streets as much because they are being ferried from one improving activity to another.

Poor people and rich people are not different species with different feelings and emotions. How stupid.

Living in poverty grinds you down and makes you tired. How many well supported, affluent mums on MN suffer with PND and other types of depression? How much harder is it to deal with those things if you are on your own and have to try and find somewhere to top up your electric key so you can have the heating on? What about having to lift your kids down the communal stairs because the lift has broken down and a junkie and shat all down them? What if you kid loses a shoe or rips their coat? Its a bloody nightmare.

Decent poor people are much more likely to have to live next to criminals and bastards than nice middle class families. They cant just get up and go if their child is in danger, they have to live with it.

How do you keep you kid away from a gang if your whole estate is run by one. How do you keep a 14year old in all the time and do you walk them to school every day?

No clue, no idea, lucky you OP.

Blue sky thinking here.

Let's imagine that we could start over, and everyone in the UK was given a fixed sum of money, enough to survive on, and an adequate home.

Does anyone honestly believe that in 50, or even just 20 or 10 or 5 years time, everyone would be living the same lives? Does anyone really think that personal drive/wit/sense of responsibility/ etc etc has no bearing on anything? The reality is that some people would squander their cash and neglect their home and expect other people to bail them out. Some people would forge ahead and create opportunities and would have created their own success. And plenty would be somewhere in the middle, not super wealthy, but not poor either.

The poor are not noble nor are they feckless. They are people and are poor for thousands of different reasons. That is why it is stupid to generalize.

Violet - I bet the people who succeeded under your strategy would not all be the same people who are doing very nicely thank you out of the current set up. Some people are fortunate enough to be born to affluent parents who can give them a leg up - they have connections and money that can help children who are not as bright as other, poorer children. And the converse applies - some children are born into families whose economic circumstances limit their opportunities.

If we wiped the slate clean and started again, we may well see the descendants of today's bin man being the Zack Goldsmiths of the mid-21st Centry, and the descendants of the trust fund kids being the bin men.

Siobahnagain, my social cirle is diverse, I live in another country fron that I grew up in.
My friends include those who literally do not have a penny to spare, some rent, some have a mortgage.
Our common ground is not financial but that we do our best for our children.
Do not regularly feed them pizza - frozen peas, baked potato, tuna just as cheap as take away just takes longer.
We do things with them, not watching TV or xbox or cruising the shopping center.
As previous poster said we are lucky that we know how to parent well and what is important to give the children the best chance and we are willing to sacrifice our own wants and needs.
I am on my own with three youngsters as my husband has to work away and my friends support me and me them.
He could refuse to do this and take benefits and we would loose our house.
Friends with 5 kids grow their own food as much as possible and we all pass clothes about.
Todays society has so little community support and often I hear mums angrily acusing others of judging instead of looking at the alternatives and considering trying a different way.

circle

decentdragon - because i think that kids are ripped off atm in terms of life guidance. i think that what you can acheive if you ARE NOT oxbridge/scientist/farking x factor winner might be a bit over looked. as in - 'you cant have X but its perfectly possible to have y or z which will result in a comfortable enjoyable life.

i was searching for the right words with 'modest luxuries' i just meant having a reasonable quality of life is attainable. i think a lot of kids from very disadavantaged backgrounds think this just isnt availablr to them.

i think getting kids to reach for the stars is great but that plan b is also very important. hope that made sense?

Absolutely edam

I believe in a meritocracy.

My point was is precisely that it is not simply cash which enables people to succeed, because, as you point out, people use their skills/personality/motivation/wit

Most very very wealthy people are wealthy because their great great great great great great great grandma was a royal mistress.

Hard work? Hardly. Just inherited priveledge.

My housemaid is from the Phillipines. She has a 2 year old back at home she had to leave behind (her husband is working in ME as well) to pay for the food and education of her 5 children. She sees her family once a year and sends every penny home because if she didn't, they would start. That's bloody poverty.