Teachers speaking out about parents' long working hours

[vestandknickers]

Here.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27027677

Interesting. I think it is good that this is being raised as an issue.

I am not anti working parents at all, but surely a society that thinks it is ok for children to be at school from 8am to 6pm needs to look at itself.

Hopefully it is still a small minority of children who spend five days a week at school for these hours, but it is good that teachers are speaking out before it becomes seen as an acceptable norm.

I hadn't picked up on that, Word, but you're right. Not everyone would go down to one working parent even if they could afford it.

I'll be honest, my DH earns a stupid amount of money and yet I like to work. Shoot me for causing the increase in house prices ...

But let's thik rationally here.

Most people get on the houysing ladder way before they have a family. We're tsalking single people and couples. This sets the base price of housing in the UK. Starter homes.

There was an interesting piece on Woman's Hour yesterday. The contributor was explaining that a woman at home taking care of her children wasn't historically the norm and only really happened for about thirty years from about 1950. Before then working class children would have been left with anyone who could look after them whilst their mother worked (and this would have been for ten hour days, six days a week - post factory reform acts) and middle class/upper class children would have been with nannies as their mothers didn't look after them either despite not working. The historical norm was that children were in childcare, no matter what class they were.

Exactly littlebear and TBH those years when women did SAH were not positive ones for women or children. Neither group had a voice in society.

The reality is that when women have an equal voice in society and equal impact on policy and how society is run, we see benefits for DC on a macro level.

this is the way we've always done it does not equate to a rationale for carrying on in the same vein.

neither industrial age britain (14 hour work days, kids up chimneys, with nannies or tiedto a chair leg alone at home) or 1950s britain (mum on diazepam going insane in suburbia, nuclear family isolation) seem like ideal templates for a society

Littlebear- that's exactly what many of us have been saying! It's assumed by some that women going to work is a recent thing and it was better in the good old days. There were no good old days!

Chibi- no one is saying it's okay because we've always done it. Just correcting the idea it's a recent thing.

I think in many of the previous models (nanny, auntie down the road etc) children would have been at or near home though. I think institutionalising children for long hours is quite a modern phenomenon.

I would argue that while children may be fine away from their parents it is not ideal for them to be in large group settings in an 'artificial' environment with poorly paid and trained staff who they have no personal bond with.

I'm sure there are many lovely, homely wrap around care providers. Lots are not a bit like that though thinks of the wrap around care at own workplace and cringes.

Actually Charles, I think conditions for children has massively improved. For one thing they have to be to in school now and there are laws to stop them working. Just think of countries where child labour still happens- hardly better than being in an after school club.

Yes, obviously I'm not comparing the after school club at my place to being down the mines.

Is better good enough though?

Family are not going to be there to help in the future though. My mum retired from full time work at 59. My generation won't retire from full time work till 70's, by which time GC will have largely grown up.

In terms of what we want for future children, we have to stop thinking of other family members as a solution, because they will be at full time work as well.

I wonder if we will see a return to older siblings looking after younger ?
Chunder
All the SAHM in the 70s I knew actually had "jobs" as well - never actually recognised as such.
Getting up early to clean, child minding, ironing, dinner ladies- they were allowed to do it as long as they didn't slack off from their household duties
We were looked after by siblings or sometimes just chucked out of the house and told not to come home until teatime!
The good old days ...

Sorry ? should have been after Chunder not before !

Doctrine the theory that dual income mortgages (whether spousal or just friends) doubled house prices is that they doubled affordability of homes by having two incomes. It's availability of cash that puts prices up, among other things like availability of homes and others we discussed.

Wordfactory your trying to pigeonhole me as a 1950s housewife is getting rather tedious.

And as other pointed out this thread is not about bashing people who put their children into childcare it's about the fact that most people are forced into it. The blame lies in the bizarre obsession we have of forcing people to work until breaking point in order to make ends meet. Housing is probably the major contributor to this problem.

There is very little choice for the vast majority of people. Families are either flat out or they're on Benefit Street.

Horse, I see your point, but many dual incomes aren't equal and many mortgage providers didn't offer the highest multiples on both incomes. Plus of course a single person might borrow to their a absolute maximum whilst a couple might be less likely to.

But you are forgetting all the other reasons why house prices have increased - the increase in single person households, the increase in relationship breakdowns, low interest rates, 100% mortgages from Northern Rock in the early/mid 2000s, the massive rise of buy to let and home improvement shows which meant everyone thought they could be Sarah Beeny and 'add value'. Finally houses stopped being homes and became assets and pensions.

Also, we're conveniently forgetting the fact that most people get on the property ladder before they have DC.

This is what drives the proerty pricing. It's the base price, that then moves forward.

I recently put in an offer for a two bed flat near a station. It could not be conbsidered a family home. Basically it's for a young couple or two friends.

I put in an offer of 285...it went for 305.

This has nothing to do with working parents.

Word - I grew up in a 2 bedroom flat. I suspect that for some people 2 bedroom flats are very much family homes. Although many starter homes are being snapped up by people either for buy to lets or for their children.

What there should be is a ban on people owning more than one property.

I do think there should be a ban on amateur by to lets, maybe through some massive tax disincentement.