At least she is pro-life....... ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Printable View
At least she is pro-life....... ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Hehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Funny how some of our American friends don't read what this is all about, but just shoot off their talking-point oneliners. Do you suppose some peoples' brains have been McDonaldised as well?
~;)
Where were you going with the McDonalds point, AII?
McDonalds does to food, oops "food", what Henry Ford did to car manufacture. Its industrialised and broken down to repetitive, mindless tasks that a moron can do, (no bad thing, we seem to have an endless supply of morons). There are no skilled engineers/cooks, and the product is remarkable primarily because its cheap.
(Digressing, I am not too dewy eyed for the good old days of craftsmanship as opposed to mass production. I am the happy owner of a 1969 Norton Commando, the ne plus ultra of british motorcycle manufacture, hand built by craftsmen. It spends all its time broken down and leaking oil on my garage floor, in stark contrast to my mass produced Honda which has not had as much as a puncture.)
Suppose we have Mcdonaldised social services? There's a reason Henry Ford invented the production line, and its to make productive use of unskilled labour. Both from what I have seen of local politics and from what I have seen trying to run a law firm, I would say one of the major challenges in life is that there is a mismatch between the average amount of intelligence and motivation required to do the average job, and the average amount of intelligence and motivation possessed by the average worker. Put bluntly, humanity is about 10% too stupid. Systems and Mcdonaldisation are a tool to bridge that 10%.
So, you want social services who are well enough funded and staffed with people who are sufficiently skilled to identify Mrs Atkins inadequacies at an early stage, and lead her by a process of socratic questioning to understanmd that she has to take responsibility for her daughters precocious sex lives. Fine, except we also need those people to be good doctors, and good teachers, and maybe even good lawyers and journalists. And there aren't enough to go round. So you have to fall back on systems.
When we have had social services scandals in the UK, the root cause is usually a breakdown in systems. (specifically, record keeping and information sharing) It aseems to me we need MORE process not less. And the process needs to be one that delivers a slapping to the likes of Mrs Atkins before her children are in the maternity ward, rather than "respecting her rights" (AKA leaving her without support). I too come accross people who are so inadequate its a wonder they can feed themselves (not all of these people are senior members of the conservative party, either). Today, they are bunged in a council flat and left to fend for themsleves. Personally, I would like to see a new sort of "suppiorted living", half way between a visit from the social worker once a month and the sort of placements we offer to people with learning difficulties, where these people are given rooms in flats with a concierge and controlled entry (to keep out the ne'er do wells who otherwise often exploit them), where a structured work friendly timetable was imposed (lights out at 11, breakfast from 7-8 am etc) and where fairly intensive support was given to get them into work (training, mentoring, a creche on site etc)
Of course that would simply be billed as "Conservatives want to bring back the Workhouse", but it would be a damn site better than paying a fortune for people to sit on the arses popping out sprogs and watching Tricia.
I'm not getting it - what's all the outrage about? Some schoolgirls have kids. Well, stuff happens. What you goin' to do? The kids need to be paid for, unless you want to see what an underclass really looks like. The schoolgirls can't pay for it, as they are in school. Yes, the fathers should contribute but then the Child Support Agency seems to have the devil's own time squeezing money out of fathers. Posters here seem to think the grandmother should pay, but she doesn't have a job and I'm not quite buying the idea that she can directly control the sexual behaviour of her children. I don't have a problem with my taxes being used to raise some kids, if the alternative is that they fall into poverty. Quite frankly, I find the sentiment in this thread extremely uncharitable and, with the eugenics garbage, ugly. Love they neighbour and let he who is without sin throw the first stone. It's at times like this, I wish I were a Christian.
You seem to have understood it quite well, like most others.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Is that so? Or would this McDonaldisation be the very reason why people today generally think that almost any job is shitty and worth holding only for the money it procures?Quote:
Put bluntly, humanity is about 10% too stupid. Systems and Mcdonaldisation are a tool to bridge that 10%.
If you'll allow me to get personal -- and I don't mean to play some silly 'journalists versus lawyers' game here -- I think that the low esteem in which you seem to hold your own job is rather telling. You're not much more than a cog in a large machine even though you put a brave face on it. I'll readily admit the same applies to my own profession (I'd even go so far to say that it is undeserving of the label 'profession' with its connotations of skill, social responsibility and ethics).
However, at an early point in my career I opted to work in a cooperative outfit, a semi-socialist form of company where the work is not McDonaldised, I am fully responsible for the end result of my work and I am damned proud of the collective end result we produce. Not proud as in: boy, this is going to bring in money. But proud as in: boy, we are really contributing something to society. Compare it to your local fire brigade. They have a functional division of labour, not a McDonald's division into crappy protocols. And their output isn't measured by the amount of diesel they burn in a year versus the profits they make on the people whose lives they save. Imagine we McDonaldised the fire brigades. You'd call the emergency number and be connected to a call center where you get to speak to a sophomore student on his night job. 'Flames leaking outside the window you say? Would that be your own building, I mean your property? I see, and what is your insurance number? Yes, I hear you.. people jumping from the third floor to their deaths, yes... but... but I have to have you insurance file number before I can put you through...'
Peoples' attitudes to work, professionalism and social responsibility have changed dramatically over the decades due to McDonaldisation. I have witnessed this process close-up in our own national railroad company NS ('Nationale Spoorwegen') both as a longtime passenger and as a journalist. Since the 1980's NS has been privatised, liberalised and marketised, so now the shareholders decide what happens to the company. It so happens that shareholders don't give a crap about transport or social relevance, they are uniquely interested in dividend. And since there is money to be made from firing people, scrapping services and selling the stretches of land on which Dutch railways have been laid (at public expense) over the past one hundred and fifty years, that's what we are seeing right now. The shareholders are God, the passengers are cattle.
And since shareholders demand quantified results, all NS operations have been split up into scores of large and small companies with separate 'mission statements', incompetent (young! dynamic!) managers and huge overhead costs. Practically all expertise that used to be available within the original NS has been scrapped and subsequently 'outsourced', at ridiculous costs, and often to the same people who had just been fired because their knowledge was 'expendable'. Jobs have been Fordised, McDonaldised and generally ridiculised, the result being that the old professionalism that used to make the NS one of the best companies in the whole wide world is now gone. Staff don't know squat, they hate their jobs, service is at an all-time low, one manager after another runs off with his pockets stuffed full of options (put, no doubt) and bonuses, and the public is sick of it.
Caution: any resemblance between the NS demise and today's social services is pure coincidence. Please note that we do not have capitalist social services involved in the active breakdown of social fabric. Not at all. We have remnants of socialism that thwart peoples' initiative and responsibility. Booh! And we have legions of leftist politicians and overpaid QC's who blame society for everything and cheer on the Atkinsons of this world. Booh! (2x)
BTW English Assassin: any chance you show us a quote from a British politician (just one will do) who puts the blame for under-age pregnancies squarely on society?
Yes, we have a mess of a de-nationalised rail system too. Another of Maggie's brain childs.
I don't think the grandmother should pay (hey because she has no money!), just the whole thing is a mess. What's up with those girls? Surely they would have realised what happens after their sister got pregnant?
The point is: nobody here knows what's up with them, unless some patron happens to live next door to the Atkinses. Surely you will be aware that there are people so dysfunctional it's a miracle they can tie their own shoes. Put them in a house, leave them to their own devices and soon there are four, and then seven of them. And all will be relatively unhappy, I guess. If not outright miserable. The issue is: should we then blame them, haul them before the Daily Mail jury, arrest them, have the neighbourhood stalk them, demand our money back, demand compensation, prison sentences, police action, tough speeches in confeence rooms, and make everybody even more miserable? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
I'm not entirely sure why we are playing this game, but this http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.u...ddoc.asp?id=69 is the social exclusion unit report on teenage pregnancy. Distressingly for me, or possibly you, it lacks the key phrase "In a very real sense we are all to blame", obviously the Bishop of Oxford must have had another engagement that day, but it does attribute the problem to "neglect" by society (para 8 of the summary) and, hardly controversially, observes that girls with more life choices will be less likely to be teenage mothers than those with fewer.
More broadly, the fact that something called the "social exclusion unit" is interesting itself in the issues suggests that if feels society can be reconfigured to reduce teenage pregnancy, surely. (I love the phrase "social exclusion". Note how it locates the problem in society. Now, a disabled person who can't get to work because the bus won't take a wheelchair is socially excluded, right enough. But a drug user is not socially excluded, he or she has chosen to exclude him or herself.)
Of course as ever this hugely begs the question of why some girls have fewer life chances, and the role neglectful parents such as Mrs Atkins have to play in that.
Possibly. Or possibly that is rather an elitist point of view. But even if it is not, should "society" pay the cost, in terms of crappy motorbikes that leak oil rather than nice japanese ones that don't, for job satisfaction. I (one) may have a McDonaldised job but I (one) can access goods and services at ridiculously low prices thanks to everyone elses McDonaldisation.Quote:
Or would this McDonaldisation be the very reason why people today generally think that almost any job is shitty and worth holding only for the money it procures?
As it happens, not entirely so, I don't know what the situation is in the Netherlands but in the UK law firms are partnerships, not so different from your co-operative in structure I imagine. My own area of practice is public law advisory work for the public sector, (and as it happens I'm pretty good at it if I do say so myself) so I can quite understand your choices. I would certainly have made a lot more money in corporate law, but...Quote:
I think that the low esteem in which you seem to hold your own job is rather telling. You're not much more than a cog in a large machine even though you put a brave face on it.
I'm not going to defend rail privatisation, I can see a bear trap when its put in front of me. By all accounts even Thatcher thought rail had to be nationalised. Thwe fact that equity finance didn't work for the railways doesn't mean its invalid as a way to finance a business generally, though. (What that had to do with teenage pregnancies i am not sure but it needed to be said.)
Because you and Fragony stated that Mrs Atkins was parroting countless politicians. So I ask for some politician's quote. Unfortunately, not only the Bishop of Oxford, but any other prominent figure you might want to quote just happens to have a day off when you need them most. This goes for Fragony too. You will find countless quotes from politicians sharing your view that society shouldn't neglect the Atkinses of this world but sort them out. After that, opinions on strategy and tactics obviously diverge: should we tackle only the Atkinses every time one pops up on page five of the Bloody Mail, or should we tackle the system that ignores them? Are we concerned about our society or just about my taxpayer money?Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
You mean your omnipresent quality press, your railway paradise, affordable housing, superb NHS, national diet of chips and Twizzlers, etcetera? Well, I stand corrected. Alright, chauvinism alarm: so let me add that on this side of the pond too, life is beginning to look like a giant, lukewarm, nutritionally void Happy Meal + plastic gadget that doesn't work.Quote:
I (one) may have a McDonaldised job but I (one) can access goods and services at ridiculously low prices thanks to everyone elses McDonaldisation.
Right. I may have mistaken your sarcasm about lawyers for some sort of barely veiled self-indictment. Sorry for that. I already knew your job probably wasn't some hyped-up corporate sinecure, you're much too smart and involved for that. Yes, that is a compliment. Now shoo.Quote:
I would certainly have made a lot more money in corporate law, but...
That is true, and I thank God my outfit operates on a free market, we have to deliver for the money we make, and nobody owns us. But my point was that public services shouldn't be run like companies, and that many companies (if fact all, apart from McDonalds..) shouldn't be McDonaldised.Quote:
By all accounts even Thatcher thought rail had to be nationalised. The fact that equity finance didn't work for the railways doesn't mean its invalid as a way to finance a business generally, though.
The problem I have when trying to extrapolate my (cooperative) view of industrial organisation is mainly a problem of scale. Cooperative structure is not going to work for the giant equity-financed corporations running this world. Even Microsoft, which seems uniquely suited due to the nature of its own product and production processes, doesn't come anywhere near a twenty-first century Athenian industrial democracy.
But I'm working on it. ~:handball: ~;)
Ah, that explains it. I didn't say she was parroting any politicians. I wondered why I was getting such a hard time over this. the closest I got to it was:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Quote:
But I think it is fair to say that "society is to blame" is a reasonably common, one might say stereotypical attitude in new labour
Aha. Now that is almost worth a thread in itself. "public services shouldn't be run like companies" discuss.Quote:
But my point was that public services shouldn't be run like companies, and that many companies (if fact all, apart from McDonalds..) shouldn't be McDonaldised.
To begin with an anecdote. A colleague left to become an advisor in the voluntary/charity sector. (This is an occupational hazard in my area, I've just lost someone to the UN in Ramalla too.) He happens to be a member of the Labour party, so no mad free-marketeer. His view now is that a major weakness in the voluntary sector is not that it is too corporate, but that it is far from being corporate enough. Projects are costed properly and surpluses aren't made and carried forward, so the whole enterprise is chronically unstable and undercapitalised. Being under capitalised, there is insufficient investment in things like IT and training for staff, resulting in less capacity, por retention, and so on. His view is a more business like approach, far from undermining the non for profit ethos, would be hugely to the advantage of the clients of these organisations.
Likewise, although I have certainly seen organisations delivering public services that are first class, staffed with committed and able people and really focused on what they are doing, I have seen at least as may that have been truly shocking, malevolent is not too strong, in their disinterest for anything except their own status . (As an aside the disease is usually stronger the closer you are to central government.) Curiously the staff in the malevolent organisations are usually the ones who are loudest in their assertion that they embody some intangible and conveniently unquantifiable quality not to be found in any company. (I really wish I could tell you about a current example I have where a turf war over one project is actually going to be putting lives at risk for the next 2-3 years, but obviosuly I can't.)
I'm not dewy eyed about companies but they are a lot more resistant to this sort of producer capture and outright political shenanigans. Also of course ones that seek to impose additional costs on the market tend to go bust.
So while you have a point on the railways I do fail to see why, say, a health service shouldn't be run "like" a company.
I think a lot of stereotyping has gone on in this case by our nasty tabloids who love a story like this. The mother when interviewed also made a very valuable point - her 11 year old child was having sex, unless she was to lock her up in her home 24/7 she could not possibly stop her child from having sex. The 11 year old was having sex in many places with her boyfriend, what is the mother meant to do other than say it is wrong? I fail to understand why so much emphasis is put into making the mother look terrible, yes she has clearly failed but physically stopping an 11 year old who clearly made a consistent choice to have sex? Very hard.
It is also clearly societies fault as well as the individuals fault EA, I am sorry to say. I know I am falling into a stereotype lefty here, but you cannot avoid the fact that it is. We can imagine the situation and areas these people live in, we can imagine the kind of behaviour the children see day in day out, experience and think perfectly acceptable. That is society failing. By letting deprived, run down areas - housing, schooling, hospitals etc - continue to get worse you get the angry, aggressive, dysfunctional behaviour increasing. We are all influenced by the part of society we live in, these children CLEARLY were too. If everyday you are told about and shown sex as if it is 100% normal you will be more likely to participate in it. On top of this if you live in a run down, dysfunctional area where violence and gang activity is the norm it becomes ever more likely. This is not to say the girl and mother did not play a significant part in their choices, they did, but society has helped cause the failure, to get away from that would be absurd.
Thus you should be proud to pay your taxes EA, because it is your taxes which - given a progressive, lefty govt - will help solve the problem. Your taxes will help build up these sords of areas, give chances to these people and help solve the problem. It is govts you would support which would make the problem far worse, it is alright for you to keep stating how it is the people at fault without acknowledging government's and societies failures too, but when you have cut all benefits, cut taxes and turned your back on these people and they keep happening with ever increasing numbers what will you do then? ... Create hate, fear and loathing, play on it and win votes no doubt, like Tories usually do.
Oh alright, but Fragony did, and you seemed to subscribe when you said it was (stereo)typical Labour talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Well no, actually this is about why social services don't deal with the Atkinses du jour. Her situation seems a typical half-product of the Kwik-Fit approach to welfare. Yes, we did look underneath your car when we fitted your new exhaust just before you had the accident. Yes, we did notice the oil dripping. But we're not qualified mechanics, you know. It's not in our contract and we have tight schedules. But we're really sorry your wife had to die 'n all.Quote:
Now that is almost worth a thread in itself.
Lol get off your high horse - youre just as much of an entrenched ideologue as anyone here. ~:handball:Quote:
Hehe.
Funny how some of our American friends don't read what this is all about, but just shoot off their talking-point oneliners. Do you suppose some peoples' brains have been McDonaldised as well?
Fact is if these girls are mature enough to have babies they are mature enough to get a job. If child labor laws disallow such an option for the younger one then mommy will have to forgo that new pair of shoes and work overtime.
Its called personal responsibility. Life is tough when you live like trash. :shrug:
At last, a question with an easy answer. Call the police. Sex with an 11 year old girl is a crime, and a serious one too.Quote:
The 11 year old was having sex in many places with her boyfriend, what is the mother meant to do other than say it is wrong?
I thought slavery was abolished in the US, oh yes I forget it was introduced again when the US embraced the bare free market. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
When the boy is of an age similar? I am under the impression that, that is the case here. When an 11 year old girl and an 11 year old boy want to have sex with each other and do so, you are going to arrest the boy? It might be the girl forcing the situation far more than the boy - which in fact seems the case here. Unless you want to keep an 11 year old boy in jail until he and the girl are legally allowed to have sex you are not going to stop them having sex if they want to have sex. Fullstop. It is horribly unfair to arrest the boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Obviously if the boy was not a boy but a bloke, then it is different but nowhere has that been stated or implied. In fact it would be a totally different story if that was the case, don't you think?
@EA, the report you quote makes interesting reading. It starts by pointing out that teen pregnancy numbers in western nations have started to diverge since the late 1970's:
Although more than two-thirds of under 16s do not have sex and most teenage girls reach their twenties without getting pregnant, the UK has teenage birth rates which are twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands. Some other countries – notably the US – have rates even higher than the UK. But within Western Europe, the UK now stands out as having the highest rate of teenage births.In order to explain this divergence, the report then outlines three factors:
5. The first is low expectations. (..) One reason why the UK has such high teenage pregnancy rates is that there are more young people who see no prospect of a job and fear they will end up on benefit one way or the other. Put simply, they see no reason not to get pregnant.Finally, as the report shows, there is a telling correlation here. The UK's numbers for teen pregnancy are closer to those of the U.S. and New Zealand than those of the rest of Europe. What is the common factor in these three societies? And I don't mean language, haha, nor the roaring sixties and their 'attack on family values' because that struck much harder in The Netherlands and our numbers look a lot better.
6. The second is ignorance. Young people lack accurate knowledge about contraception, STIs, what to expect in relationships and what it means to be a parent. (..)
7. The third is mixed messages. As one teenager put it to the Unit, it sometimes seems as if sex is compulsory but contraception is illegal. One part of the adult world bombards teenagers with sexually explicit messages and an implicit message that sexual activity is the norm. Another part, including many parents and most public institutions, is at best embarrassed and at worst silent, hoping that if sex isn’t talked about, it won’t happen. The net result is not less sex, but less protected sex.
8. These three factors point to a single faultline in past attempts to tackle this problem: neglect. Governments and society have neglected the issue because it can easily drift into moralising and is difficult for anyone to solve on their own. And the most vulnerable communities and young people have been the most neglected of all. Teenage pregnancy is a classic joined-up problem but has never had an agency or individual prepared to take responsibility for tackling it as a whole.
Has there been a particular political experience these three countries shared since the late 1970's?
Yes I am. Its against the law. (Oooooh, get HER, Judge Dredd just walked into the org...)Quote:
When the boy is of an age similar? I am under the impression that, that is the case here. When an 11 year old girl and an 11 year old boy want to have sex with each other and do so, you are going to arrest the boy? It might be the girl forcing the situation far more than the boy - which in fact seems the case here. Unless you want to keep an 11 year old boy in jail until he and the girl are legally allowed to have sex you are not going to stop them having sex if they want to have sex. Fullstop
@AII well I know what you are getting at of course but I'd need to see evidence that it was anything to do with liberalising the economy. if the UK figures sky rocketed in 79, NZ in the 90s and the US has always been high then I might agree, economic liberals are a threat to our daughters.
What I do think the UK and US are very weak on (don't know about NZ) is sex education, which is obviously a contributing factor. Did you see the statistics on use of contraceptives? Very telling.
I also have no issues at all with the need to improve peoples life chances though as I pointed out in an earlier post these girls have pretty good life chances already. JAG certainly paints a dire picture of deprivation and it may be the circumstances that these girls live in, or there again, it may not.
Comtemplating these problems en masse is important of course, it doesn't in my mind detract from the fact that something has gone VERY wrong in this family with three underage pregnancies and at least one secret paedophile in the picture, and the one person who was unquestionably under a duty to stop this is quite defiant that it is not her fault. Even if you think it is ALSO someone elses fault she, surely, deserves condemnation if only so all the other crappy mothers out there might just think, maybe I'd better have a word with Kylie about condoms.
I think that both of them need to have something done to them as it's USI (underage sexual intercourse) I have no idea what that something is though...Because as previously stated, a)it's not the child's fault, don't punish the child b) punishing the parents will probably affect the child c) You can't really take money off their benefits or force them to spend it on better food or whatnot...Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Well on the topic of sex education...I am going to say full stop that it is relatively ineffective. I don't exactly live in a deprived area or anything but the people who are going to get laid at a party don't exactly carry condoms around...trust me, I have been at some of those parties.
And well, it might br useful but sex ed in it's current form is just quite laughable. I only know about it in my school and a couple of others and it all seems a bit on it's high horse so to speak. It's just a don't have sex but if you do please use a condom...but we closed down the local youth health centre thing and you can't really go off and buy a condom so don't have sex ~:eek: cycle.
This topic is a great dillemma in that whatever the monkey you do, very little good seems to happen :furious3:
In a way, yes, and better sex education is no doubt a part of the solution -- but we're not going to vindicate Mrs Atkins' statement after all, are we? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I think most intractable social problems are inextricably linked: poor performance in school, poor health, deficient housing, family problems, domestic violence, sexual abuse, low income, unemployment, welfare dependency, alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile crime and, indeed, sheer stupidity. By that I mean stupidity in the real sense of: lack of intelligence, absence of a capacity of the mind to perform logic-symbolic operations necessary to function in modern society.
For convenience, let us call them 'the poor'.
There have been two approaches to them in the world's affluent societies in the past decades, leading to two different kinds of policies.
1. The neoliberal one: the poor have only themselves to blame, they aren't entitled to my tax money and if they create problems they should be punished for it. Cut social spending.
2. The social/christian democratic one: the poor are an integral part of my society, I want my money spent wisely on them in their interest and mine, and if they create problems we will resolve those problems. Maintain social spending.
On this scale the UK seems to have been a half way house between the U.S. and the rest of Europe. All statistics bear this out. And all polls bear out that the British have had it with neoliberal policies:
A large proportion of the population believes that the gap between rich and poor is too large and that it is government's responsibility to reduce it. Most people substantially underestimate the pay of highly paid occupations, but still think it should be lower. Most people believe that there is 'quite a lot of real poverty' in Britain, and give views that are consistent with notions of a poverty line that rises over time as society becomes more affluent. Less than a quarter of the population blames 'laziness or lack of willpower' on the part of the poor for their low income.Taxes are the last taboo of the Thatcher era, but Brown has been working on that quite successfully. Anyway, in response to your concluding general remark I would say that generally speaking, social spending is still necessary and beneficial, and I do wish we use it wisely, in a client-centered and not state-centered way, and on the basis of moral instead of financial accountability.
Inequality and the State, Prof. John Hills, Oxford University Press, 2004
BTW: New Zealand seems to fall outside any equation because high teen fertility has always been a feature among Maori and Pacific women. The trend in teen pregnancies has been pretty stable since the 1960's, the main difference being that since the 1970's NZ teens don't marry anymore:
In 1971, there were more births among married teenagers than those not married – 5,100 versus 3,700. Over the next three decades, the number of nuptial confinements among teenagers collapsed from 5,100 in 1971 to just under 200 in 2002, with most of the large fall taking place in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Indeed, the role of genuine stupidity in social problems (and its close cousin, poor impulse control) is in my view hugely underestimated. The trouble is unlike some of the other factors you cite stupidity isn't curable. (Nor, if reports I have seen on programmes run with offenders in prison, is poor impulse control).Quote:
think most intractable social problems are inextricably linked: poor performance in school, poor health, deficient housing, family problems, domestic violence, sexual abuse, low income, unemployment, welfare dependency, alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile crime and, indeed, sheer stupidity. By that I mean stupidity in the real sense of: lack of intelligence, absence of a capacity of the mind to perform logic-symbolic operations necessary to function in modern society.
Some of the factors you mention could in principle be cured easily. Poor housing shouldn't be that difficult (though you would be amazed how easily some people can trash their council flat. But then people who think it is normal to crap on the floor should probably be in some form of mental health institution). Some maybe rather more tricky but in principle more can be done (domestic violence and sexual abuse, say). But take all that away and you will come back to the inescapable facts of stupidity and the consequences of stupidity.
And there I have to say we hit one of those defining issues that puts me right of centre, and that it is that provided a person does not have learning difficulties, (ie is so deficient that they are genuinely incapable of functioning in adult society) and provided every opportunity has been given so we aren't talking about the merely under educated but the stupid and reckless, then let the consequences fall where they may. I wholly accept the other view is tenable, but in my view trying to enforce some sort of equality of outcome, which is in effect what you would be doing, creates huge moral hazards.
NB stupidity isn't evil, although its consequences can be close to it. Of course, stupid people are not morally blameworthy or to be condemned. But, in the words of a famous judgement, it is a misfortune, not a priviledge.
I wouldn't put too much faith in those polls either without a very clear idea of their design. A lot of people might agree with "do you think people who are paid more than you should be paid a bit less." Do people have a good understanding not only of what, say, a consultant surgeon is paid, but also how many consultant surgeons there are? I really fail to understand the excitement caused in some parts of the left by the idea of attacking "the rich" (by which incidentally note that we mean people who work for a living. If we were talking about Charlie Windsor and his flunkeys I could begin to see it.) Consider this:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=334Quote:
In 2002-03, the original income of the top fifth of households in the UK was around fifteen times greater than for those in the bottom fifth (£60,300 per household per year compared with £4,000). This compares with ratios of eighteen to one in the two previous years.
After adjusting for taxes and benefits the ratio was greatly reduced, to four to one for final income, unchanged from previous years.
The types of households that gain from this redistribution tend to be one adult households with children, two adult households with three or more children and retired households.
Thats a heck of a lot of (income) redistribution right there. Fifteen to one down to four to one. Do we need more? And if you totally mullered the top, shall we say 5%, do you really think it would make that much difference to the pensioners and unemployed? There's an awful lot more of them.
I hope I have made it clear that I am talking about controlling social damage and misery. This thread never was about forcing 'equal outcomes'.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Ah, so the rich still work where you live? In The Netherlands, they don't even live where they live anymore. ~;)Quote:
(..) "the rich" (by which incidentally note that we mean people who work for a living (..)
So simplified, it comes done to the following "defining issues":Quote:
And there I have to say we hit one of those defining issues that puts me right of centre, and that it is that provided a person does not have learning difficulties, (ie is so deficient that they are genuinely incapable of functioning in adult society) and provided every opportunity has been given so we aren't talking about the merely under educated but the stupid and reckless, then let the consequences fall where they may. I wholly accept the other view is tenable, but in my view trying to enforce some sort of equality of outcome, which is in effect what you would be doing, creates huge moral hazards.
- those people who cause all those problems are genetically inferior. Thus whatever they have to live with is their business. It is neither effective nor morally acceptable to help them any more than others. That way, only the strongest of them will survive and will eventually become worthy of the compassion of us Übermenschen. That is only natural.
- they have these problems because the bourgoisie exploits them. Capitalism makes them poor and robs them of all their choices in life. Their only hope is the struggle of the classes. Teenage pregnants of all countries unite!
Great prospects, isn't it?!
Fascinating fact. I suspect it's the benefits, not the taxes, that have the biggest effect. (In fact I know it's the case, if you look at other inequality measures such as Gini coefficients). A lot of households may have zero income before benefits - eg state pensioners, unemployed, disabled - but then get a living income from the state. Tax rates are higher for the rich, but broadly speaking are reasonably proportional - especially as the rich are quite good at reducing tax liability. I suspect the crude story is that taxpayers - rather than the "rich" per se - pay for the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
One aspect that should not be lost sight of though, is that a lot of this redistribution is intertemporal rather than interpersonal. People who at one time are taxpayers also get a lot of state benefits in certain contingencies (retirement, unemployment). The poor are also a surprisingly changeable group - lots of movement in and out of poverty, which rather gives the lie to the idea that they are a permanent class of low IQ people[1].
[1] And don't get me started on IQ as a immutable characteristic...
How can you blame society at the same time allow personal choice? It is normally one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
If they choose it is their responsibility.
As minors society needs to protect them if their parents cannot. Where is their father as their mother is not capable when all three of her daughters are under 18 and pregnant.
Also you are blaming the environment in which they live. Fair enough, we do get influenced by our peers. But what percentage of them are underage and pregnant...surely if some chose not to go down that path it shows that the rest are choosing to do so and hence it is their choice not societies.
Since the majority of society seems to be against underage pregnancy and have laws against underage sex then surely these children need to be protected. Society is not to blame in this situation, it is going to have to pick up the pieces.
And yes it is automatically eugenics when the government is changing the viability of portions of the population having children. In Australia the government gives $2000 per child born (there are other benefits)... Now if the amount varied say $20000 for middle class and $200 dollars for those on the dole that would be a form of eugenics as it would be favouring one group above another...
These are all good points. Its right that the benefits have the greater effect, there is another page on the ONS website, I think the one dealing with how the Gini coefficient has varied over time, which notes this.Quote:
Fascinating fact. I suspect it's the benefits, not the taxes, that have the biggest effect. (In fact I know it's the case, if you look at other inequality measures such as Gini coefficients). A lot of households may have zero income before benefits - eg state pensioners, unemployed, disabled - but then get a living income from the state. Tax rates are higher for the rich, but broadly speaking are reasonably proportional - especially as the rich are quite good at reducing tax liability. I suspect the crude story is that taxpayers - rather than the "rich" per se - pay for the poor.
One aspect that should not be lost sight of though, is that a lot of this redistribution is intertemporal rather than interpersonal. People who at one time are taxpayers also get a lot of state benefits in certain contingencies (retirement, unemployment). The poor are also a surprisingly changeable group - lots of movement in and out of poverty, which rather gives the lie to the idea that they are a permanent class of low IQ people[1].
[1] And don't get me started on IQ as a immutable characteristic...
The intertemporal point is also a good one. Consider the premium this puts on the stability of whatever agency it is you pay your "taxes" to in your seven fat years. A particular problem for pensions, of course, where the government is in effect defaulting on the promise it made/makes to NI payers (by which i mean those who have paid NI in say the past 20 years in the exoectation that when they come to retire there will be an OK state pension will not have those ecpectations met), and yet the private sector is not a great deal better (Equitable life, anyone?). Who do you trust more, companies or politicians. Personally I trust the private sector but again that is a point on which reasonable people could differ...
The movement in and out of poverty is also a vital point and one frequently overlooked in political rhetoric. I think it was the Kings Fund investigated long term poverty about 18 months ago and found that as a wide spread social phenomenon it didn't really exist in the UK. (I can't remember but I think they MUST have excluded pensioners to reach that conclusion). Not, NB, that there was no poverty, and not that there might not be some people who spent a long time in poverty, but that over time people moved into poverty (divorce, losing a job, illness) and out again (retraining, new job, etc).
I must say I found that rather a positive finding, taking the view that life always has a few ups and downs and the government can hardly be expected to prevent that. Although I appreciate the labour party has to pretend that there is widespread and persistant poverty for its own reasons, which is fair enough.
Happily no one has yet mentioned IQ per se, or genetics which I see raised its head in AS's post. I am guilty of referring to "stupidity" but by that I meant a compendious (and possibly circular) general inability to make the "right" decisions. It could as easily include someone who was clever but lazy (someone who, say, posts on an internet forum insterad of doing his work...) Certainly not a lack of ability to shuffle funny little triangles and squares around on a piece of paper....
And I am guilty of using the term 'poor' as a dustbin for people who are unable to fend for themselves for a variety of reasons I mentioned (see above). That's why I don't agree with your focus on finances, Simon. Social problems do not all equate to poverty, but (relative) poverty compounded by social, physical or psychological handicaps is a serious problem and people tend to become stuck in it. And as JAG stated, there are neighbourhoods where such problems are endemic. Living is such neighbourhoods is not a life style choice, gentlemen, and getting pregnant at the age of twelve is not part of life's ups and downs for most girls.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
EDIT
I almost forgot Mrs Atkins is a case in point. She 'makes' 30 grand a year, but I think we can agree she has a problem nonetheless...
Yes, the problem is not purely financial, it's just that outrage at the £30,000 per year subsidy was the starting point of this debate. I admit I'm not enraptured by it, but I am not convinced it should be cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
But it may just be part of life's ups and downs for these girls. I suspect a lot of girls who do get pregnant early go on to have good lives and bring up fine kids. Especially if supported so they can continue to study, raise their kids in decent accommodation etc. Sure, it's harder for them and of course it's a mistake to get pregnant so young. But plastering the faces of some of the youngsters affected over the tabloids and lambasting them in public seems uncharitable and ugly.Quote:
...and people tend to become stuck in it. ... and getting pregnant at the age of twelve is not part of life's ups and downs for most girls.
Um, who are you trying to convince? ~:) This is exactly what I wrote earlier in the thread, particularly because I know how my dear colleagues of the tabloid press tend to operate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Fascinating discussion.
Still, I thought the gist of the thread-starter was "Little girls are having sex, and someone needs to be punished." The debate, from there, was an examination of who that should be: the girls, their protector, or the village-at-large.
One little factlet that got kind of skipped over back there was the NZ teen pregnancy rates. The impression I got of the reaction to the statistic was: 'Well, it's a culture thing'.
I'd like to look at that more closely; does anyone think that the extended-juvenilization of our teens in the First World post-industrial society is beyond its use? I mean this: before the Industrial Revolution, child labor was not only legal, but necessary and expected. During the IndRev, we outlawed child labor, and made those 11-18 year olds go to school. One effect of this was the expansion of the definition of 'chilhood' way beyond the onset of puberty.
Is it time to re-look at our definition of adulthood and childhood? Specifically, for what 'interests of society' do we continue to oppress teenagers, and deny them the same freedoms we over 18's enjoy? Why not confer adulthood and full citizenship to all residents as soon as they are biologically able to reproduce themselves? With all attendant responsibilities, of course.
Or am I just trying to solve an insoluable problem by redefining it? ~D