Mumsnet in Sunday Times

[Xenia]

I cannot link because of the firewall but saw a reference to mumsnet - article about left wing people who send children to private schools.

one couple they referred to broke up their marriage because they could not agree on state or private schooling.

(When is it right to put family ahead of principle?

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1101910.ece )

Mrs Guy - life is full of things one can't/couldn't predict, on a personal/macroeconomic/political level.

A certain amount of crystal-ball gazing is sensible, but blaming people for having faulty crystal balls seems ...callous.

I suspect most people have no need/desire for private islands or schools or skiing trips. If people want and genuinely enjoy long hours in a City job and value the financial rewards over the free time lost, then that is lovely for them, but it's very narrow-minded to suggest that everyone ought to seriously consider this kind of career and lifestyle if it is of no interest to them.

I'm inclined to think it is this obsession with material success over real achievement that is at the heart of much that is wrong with modern society. When someone can - even tongue-in-cheek, as I suspect Xenia is - claim that being a midwife is to be 'mediocre' whilst to be a banker is a 'success' and therefore meaningful, we as a society have very clearly got our values all screwed up.

mrsguy I really noticed this holiday how many questions the DC have been asking about money/employment/the economy/the cost of things.

I try to be as honest and as informative as I can be. Knowledge is power and I want my DC as powerful in that regard as possible.

bread it's all very well saying that chosing low paid work is noble etc but here on MN not a day goes by where at least five poeple post to say how stressed they are about money.

wordfactory - Where have I said that low paid work is 'noble'?

There is nothing particularly 'noble' about working in a call centre or behind the till at Tesco's.I'm just pointing out that you cannot measure the value of a job to society by its pay and you're a fool if you think you can.

If people want to work in the City that's up to them.If they want to be doctors,that's up to them. But I don't think that doctors are more 'important' than nurses or midwives,just because they are paid more, nor that bankers are more socially useful still,just because they are paid more than all the others put together.

My point was also that, with the best planning in the world, people can still end up stressed about money. I think we need to look at what values and lifestyle we want to espose as a society and so here - my politics are never far from the surface - we need to consider, as a society rather than just as individuals - whether it is right that some people can work long days yet still end up 'stressed' about being able to afford essentials; the ludicrously high cost of housing and university education are two areas that urgently need to be addressed.

bread I agree that it is all wrong that some people can work very hard and still not be able to make ends meet. House pirces and rents plus childcare play a factor here, I htink.

However, whilst I do think this is wrong, it is what it is. And it aint gonna change anytime soon. In fact I htink it's set to get very much worse.

So I think it is our responsibility to furnish our DC with the facts. And I'm not talking about islands and ski trips, I'm talking about basic health and happiness. And I personally, think basic health and happiness is hard to obtain on a low income and will be virtually impossible in the not too distant future.

Wordfactory you are right about the world changing. A few weeks ago a colleague was complaining that his parents retired at 55, and then travelled the world, whereas he cant visualise ever being able to do so. He couldn't seem to grasp that that little brief bubble of prosperity for ordinary people is now burst - ain't ever gonna be like that again. the income you earn in the few years you work is NOT enough to have a social life and holidays abroad and buy a house,and be a SAHM parent and fund your Dc universities, and have a comfortable retirement pensionand , a comfortable care home and leave your house to your DC - you have to make decisions and hard choices about which bits yuou do and dont want.
Of course you can;t foresee everthing, but does not take a crystal ball to see that a career as a midwife might be reqrding in many ways, and eg offer the option of part-time when DC are small, but it will not fund a lavish lifestyle as well, so go ahead make the decison understanding that.

Xenia: the FT article you pasted doesn't support your argument about these fantastic privately-educated teachers with their independent school values. It gives the following reasons for London schools doing well:

1. High immigrant population.
2. More adults in London have a degree than outside London, making it easier to recruit teachers.
3. Teach First, which encourages high fliers into the classroom (doesn't say anything about them being privately-educated).
4. Influx of new management, esp of academies.
5. The London Challenge, a programme of targeted interventions.

I don't think anyone who becomes a midwife expects a 'lavish' lifestyle off the back of that alone, Mrs Guy.

In most parts of the country, a couple, one of whom is a midwife, can get by - I can't imagine what life in the UK would look like if no-one could afford to be a midwife,nurse, teacher etc. Hardly a place that any of us, Xenia included, would wish to live in, whatever she may claim. She doesn't actually want everyone to practice what she preaches because who will then provide her healthcare/education/cleaning/transpot etc etc etc ad infinitum.

As to whether the wealth inequalities will still be here in the time period discussed or worse or better is very much a matter for the crystal balls; I suspect Mrs Guy and Xenia would like that to be the case, and it may or may not be.

I think the implication in this thread that any parent who does not encourage their dc to earn as much wonga as possible over all other priorities or interests is a 'bad' parent is as silly as the opposite, encouraging your child to earn low out of some misplaced ideal of what wordfactory described as 'nobility'.

Whatever Xenia may imagine, I don't think the purpose of feminism was that women could devote themselves to amassing riches for their own sake; it was about everyone being able to achieve a work-life balance that suited them. A few weirdos Xenia may aspire to nothing greater than £££, but most people, I think, want to enjoy things now, not just fantasise about a rich old age with family cosying up to get a share of inheritance.

Loving the assumption that everyone on Teach First was privately educated

breadandbutterfly: "I can't imagine what life in the UK would look like if no-one could afford to be a midwife,nurse, teacher etc. Hardly a place that any of us, Xenia included, would wish to live in, whatever she may claim. "

Well, quite.

I can see that Xenia likes having a lot of money and she wants her children to have a lot of money too. Obviously a lot of people think the same way, and I suppose, given the choice, we would all rather be rich than poor.

But I just find her inability to see that there's more to aspire to in life incredibly depressing. What better feeling could there be than to be a midwife who can come home at the end of a working day and say "I saved a baby's life today"? Many years ago I heard a clip of a 999 call in which a paramedic talked a mother through performing CPR on her baby, who had stopped breathing, and the call ended up with the mother saying, "He's breathing." My memory of that is still vivid, and still brings tears to my eyes. Not everything in life has a monetary value.

I recently read an article about Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer who represents people on death row. (www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/08/clive-stafford-smith-jury-system-insanity). He can look back on his life, and say he has done something worthwhile. I was struck by this paragraph, which I don't suppose Xenia can relate to:

"Stafford Smith draws no salary from Reprieve. Instead, he receives a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for being a "visionary" ? for which he is not liable to pay income tax. But every year he works out how much tax he would pay, were it a salary, and sends it off to the Inland Revenue."

The world would be a better place if there were more Stafford Smiths, and fewer people who thought that earning a lot of money was the be-all and end-all of existence.

hackmum - I expect Xenia would work out the average amount of money that baby would be expected to earn during his life, and point out that saving his life was an investment worth making

I didn't know that about Clive Stafford-Smith, good for him!

I like Stafford Smith. He's a hoot for sure.

But it's all about choices isn't it?
He hasn't chosen money (though he does come from a background of priviledge and have family money), but nor has he chosen to be at home with his family much.

It's all about knowledge. If someone decides to do what he does, they should go into it open minded ie they will have to travel a lot and work incredibily anti social hours. Family life has to come second som eof the time.

The deaths of many of us are determined by money these days. The poor are fat and die young. The rich can die up to 20 y ears later with better help and years of ace pricvate health care. The rich can choose to die at home with teams of carers and sadly where a lot of money might be inherited often closer famly members unto the end (money always talks). You have huge choice over type and place and nature of death if you are rich, even the choice to go to Dignitas if you choose which the poor do not. Do not con yourselves that deaths are equal. Money makes death better. Money also means you can buy time to be with those you love and have many more choices in life.

I think that is very generalised. It is possible to be poor and thin and live to an old age!
Money is a help to avoid being ill and to help in the care but money can't give you good health. Eva Rausing is a good example of money causing an early death.
I don't know why you would want to die at home with teams of carers (women on the whole) that you despise for not making more of their lives.
If my family members were getting close to me at the end to inherit my money I would rather they didn't bother!!
I wouldn't choose Dignitas -it sounds a fairly horrible end to me.
It hardly buys you time to spend with the people that you love if they are far too busy building careers and making money to take the time off.

All in all I would rather earn less-keep healthy by getting my fruit and veg in the market, keeping off processed food (going vegetarian if I needed to keep the food costs down) and going running regularly for free.
I am not choosing a job so that I can 'afford a better death'-I will just take pot luck. I don't want to live for ever and think that the really rich who want to buy immortality are bonkers.
I can't see the point of getting on some treadmill so that you can earn pots of money to live longer, to keep on earning pots of money, so that you can die well. I would much rather have the time to do the things that I like, have time to 'stand and stare' and enjoy myself. I will take pot luck at the end!

i would LOVE to see Xenia in a class of badly behaved low motivated kids.

Or her kids. And see her flounder.

You do love your stereotypes Xenia!

I have often posted about my full life. I sing. I swim. I own and use my own island. I have a large family with whom I am very involved etc etc. I have much more leisure time than those struggling on £20k a year and have a wondeful life and underpinning all that is money. The suggestion what you either pick filthy lucre and have an awful life or you have a nice work life balance just does not stack up.

On the £1k a day earnings thread we were posting about the 4 hour working week. Women need to work smart not necessarily long.

Plenty of us do huge amounts of stuff like Stafford S does. The more you earn and the more talented you are the better you are able to help others. Rich women do much more good on this planet than impoverished housewives.

Feminism needs to concentrate power and money into female hands. At present men own 99% of the world's wealth and 66% of its income. Women need to forget about having enough time to polish their nails and get out there and seize power and money and exceed men rather than pathetically hiding in minimum wage jobs whilst ensuring they are home on time to make dinner for a man.

But while you were doing that,other women were holding your babies.So you just played pass the parcel.You didnt pass the babies to other men.

Had a thought.Did your nanny just hold your baby,or did she have other peoples babies to look after as well.Because then the whole idea could sort of work.

I find this thread a bit baffling. I have always worked in catering. I loved my job. It made me happy. I don't care about having money. As long as my bills are covered I'm happy. Lower paid jobs are necessary, lower paid workers are just as important as high earners. Someone has to serve your meals, look after your sick, clean the streets and work in shops.

And I find the attitude that these jobs aren't as imnportant insulting. I don't care what ds does when he grows up, as long as he is happy and does it with integrity.

I find this thread a bit baffling. I have always worked in catering. I loved my job. It made me happy. I don't care about having money. As long as my bills are covered I'm happy. Lower paid jobs are necessary, lower paid workers are just as important as high earners. Someone has to serve your meals, look after your sick, clean the streets and work in shops.

And I find the attitude that these jobs aren't as imnportant insulting. I don't care what ds does when he grows up, as long as he is happy and does it with integrity.

I don't admire people who make their DC suffer for their principles. If there's a good state school, fine. If there's not?

If you can afford the teams of carers at the end they are going to be women. I would be amazed if rich 90year old women want men bathing them. It is somewhat hypocritical to tell women that they can't go for caring jobs and then rely on them.
I wonder how many career women would actually employ a male nanny for their 9month old DD if they could find one? My guess is -not many. Unless they are going to put their money where their mouth is they ought to keep quiet.

If it comes down to it most men don't have power and wealth either. A small proportion of people (admittedly more men) have both.
I don't want either and I wouldn't want to be married to anyone who had too much power and wealth to cope with mowing the lawn and cooking a meal.

Well said lissielou. If you adore cooking why go and have a career in banking?

perhaps she wants women,who have never cared or nursed before,had no training etc,to suddenly start administering to her in her last few weeks?perhaps she would like it if they had previously been business women?

I think she is relying on the family members who hope to inherit!