UK Politics: Picking Your Career

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

On 6/13/2023 at 12:53 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I actually think there's a pretty major difference on this issue between the US and the UK. Transphobia in the UK got political prominence via Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism which was rooted very deeply in upper middle class white feminism with a very distinctly British flavour to it - every aspect there is relevant to how it came about. Trans people being the target is a fundamental part of the movement, it is explicitly a rejection of us and a desire to keep us out of "female spaces" initially and public life more broadly. American conservative groups saw the potential for this to be a useful fork of the culture war and funneled funds across the Atlantic to raise the profile of these exclusionary voices, they started kicking up more of a fuss and slowly sucked people online down the rabbit hole that Glinner was a trailblazer on. 

In the US however? I don't buy that they actually give much of a fuck about trans people. It's just a successful culture war outlet that rebounded off the UK and is now almost entirely about signalling just how righteously conservative they are to each other (you know, "virtue" signalling like they love to claim others are doing). Trump himself basically called them out for it a couple of days ago saying 5 years ago they had no idea who trans people even were. Its not about us at all

Hmm I disagree to an extent. I do think it has been in part a cynical co-opt from American right to be sure I’ll concede.

An associate of mine posited it perhaps was in part a way to try to ween republicans off trumpism

but I think there is a genuine animosity to people not doing what they think having a certain biological sex demands. Total demonization of  gender nonconformity is necessary for the fascist society they’d like to build and attacking trans people is an important stepping stone for that grander goal. 

A recent example to highlight this: none of Megan Fox’s kids are trans(far as they say) but the fact her kids have ever wore bright colored clothing and have long was enough to immediately get a lot of mainstream conservative thought leaders  crying she’s trying to groom/indoctrinate her kids into big trans

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2023/06/11/megan-fox-responds-robby-starbuck-criticism-children-gender-identity/70311566007/

 

I think one advantage in the US is that the republicans are pushing all their policies  at the same time with same fervor in way that could turn off a lot more of the women British terfs often appeal to or at presented as appealing to. Liberal, progressive women.

They haven’t been acclimated to the ‘logic’ necessary to take their possible primal uneasiness at trans people and extrapolating it to other areas of  reactionary movement.

Which is important.

If one accepts the stripping of medical and reproductive autonomy to this extent

 

Then would be equally justified in stripping the medical autonomy outside of transitional more broadly, though more specifically people who can give birth eventually.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Varysblackfyre321]

57 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I can definitely see your point, and that whole "1x100 = no go, but 2 x 90 is fine" strikes me as some poorly crafted criteria. While its true that a single adult has a much greater disposable income than a couple with a kid who earn the same amount, that goes completely out the window for a single parent. I'd expect that the amount of things you have to pay for when you wouldn't if a partner could do it themselves (rather relevantly - some of child care) balance out, if not surpass, the extra cost of living coming from the extra mouth to feed etc.

Oh yeah not mention the mental strain which can manifest into more physical health problems and a loss of productivity at work.

 

[mormont]

If you all need some comic relief: Nadine Dorries has decided to demand all records of any conversations relating to why she didn't get her promised sinecure and won't be resigning until she's got a full explanation of what went on. Not in any way a childish tantrum but a Very Serious Matter which demands a comprehensive investigation.

I suspect some of her constituents might be wondering if she ever put so much effort into representing their interests, but who are we to judge?

[The Anti-Targ]

14 hours ago, karaddin said:

The arguments against means testing that I'm sympathetic to are 

1. The costs of enforcing the means testing are larger than the cost of simply supplying it to everyone. I'm not sure that would apply in this case as child care is genuinely relatively expensive, but I'm also not sure it doesn't so listing it off.
2. By allowing the wealthier in society to access it, you get better buy in from the people with the most power and (hopefully) deter them from simply trying to get rid of it completely. The reality for this one of course is that the truly wealthy would never use the public option for their child care anyway, but it being available to them might take some resentment out of it. The income levels that you're talking about here aren't high enough to be the truly powerful, but they still tend to be influential as a whole, and plenty of them would still be taking public child care if they don't have to pay for it.

So both arguments are pragmatic ones, but also not applicable here if the single mother on 100 grand is already not qualifying anyway. They are arguments for making things truly universal. 

When it comes to children I personally like policies that give people financial headroom to be stay at home parents for as long as that family thinks it's necessary rather than only incentivising placing children in childcare facilities. So sure, 30 hrs of govt paid childcare, but how about a direct payment to families of that money and they can choose whether to use that money to pay someone else to look after the child, or use it to pay themselves to look after the child.

[karaddin]

The issue with childcare is that the only way to make it affordable is to either do it at scale, or exploit the shit out of the workers. There needs to be enough of a gap between what the parent earns by working and how much the child care costs to make it actually worthwhile which just isn't possible ethically with a low ratio of kids to workers.

I expect that the government has more capacity to operate at scale, which is an argument against simply giving parents the money for it. That approach is very often the best though, so I understand going there - just think that child care may be one of the exceptions.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

one thing that would really help with childcare is not to make the childcare providers do so much paperwork and tests for each child they look after each day.  Yes some general ones a few times a year to record if the child is developing  but there is a limit to what is reasonable.

 

My Mum used to work in a nursery, one staff member in each room was constantly always stuck doing the developmental task/activities instead of actually being able to look after the kids.  Can this child count to 5, can this child know each of these colours / shapes, stand up, sit down, jump, hop, tie shoelaces ect.  each time you would run an activity as a group you need to do it several times since some kids only come mornings or afternoon and not every day.  and sometimes the kid is just being uncooperative.  This was the main reason Mum gave up work, and that was over 30 years ago.

 

I have a cousin who was a childminder 5 years ago.  they had to to all those tests (a lot easier when its just a couple of kids) plus record the activities they did each day, if they went to the toilet including if it was a poo or just a wee.  what they ate and when, if they slept for how long and the time.  and then had to do some educational activities each day and record them.  She would spend 8 hours a day looking after the kids then several hours in the evening and some weekend time doing the paperwork - that bit is unpaid time.  This excess has to make it much harder for people to want to look after other peoples children and in turn reduces the amount of childcare places available.  The government can promise to pay for 100 hours a week if it wanted, but that won't change the amount of placements available if people don't want to work in childcare.

[kiko]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

When it comes to children I personally like policies that give people financial headroom to be stay at home parents for as long as that family thinks it's necessary rather than only incentivising placing children in childcare facilities. So sure, 30 hrs of govt paid childcare, but how about a direct payment to families of that money and they can choose whether to use that money to pay someone else to look after the child, or use it to pay themselves to look after the child.

That was the famous Herdprämie, pushed by the populist right conservative CSU in Bavaria. It's basically an incentive and bonus for well off families to keep their womenfolk shackled to the kitchen stove.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

The issue with childcare is that the only way to make it affordable is to either do it at scale, or exploit the shit out of the workers. There needs to be enough of a gap between what the parent earns by working and how much the child care costs to make it actually worthwhile which just isn't possible ethically with a low ratio of kids to workers.

I expect that the government has more capacity to operate at scale, which is an argument against simply giving parents the money for it. That approach is very often the best though, so I understand going there - just think that child care may be one of the exceptions.

Except that by paying only for third party childcare you financially penalise parents who want to stay at home to look after their kids. There is some weird presumption that every parent wants to run back to work ASAP, which isn't true. Lot's of families want to have a stay at home parent but with lack of direct payments to support that it's becoming less viable.

I have friends who were desperate to get back to work ASAP and weren't even interested in the meagre period of paid parental leave that was available, and I have friends who wanted nothing more than to be the full time caregiver for their children right through primary school. Why can't a social welfare system be flexible enough to financially facilitate families making the child rearing choice that fits with their preferences and circumstances?

It's as much ideological bullshit to say the only financial help available is 30hrs third party child care as it is bullshit to tell all mothers to stay at home chained to the kitchen stove. 

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Except that by paying only for third party childcare you financially penalise parents who want to stay at home to look after their kids. There is some weird presumption that every parent wants to run back to work ASAP, which isn't true. Lot's of families want to have a stay at home parent but with lack of direct payments to support that it's becoming less viable.

I have friends who were desperate to get back to work ASAP and weren't even interested in the meagre period of paid parental leave that was available, and I have friends who wanted nothing more than to be the full time caregiver for their children right through primary school. Why can't a social welfare system be flexible enough to financially facilitate families making the child rearing choice that fits with their preferences and circumstances?

It's as much ideological bullshit to say the only financial help available is 30hrs third party child care as it is bullshit to tell all mothers to stay at home chained to the kitchen stove. 

The stay at home parents would need a huge amount more than the return to work people though to make it worth their while.

The actual benefit of the 30 hours free is only about 450 a month, that's not going to make a difference.  Since there isn't enough money currently to pay for the meagre amount of childcare, where is the extra going to come from? 

Edited June 15, 2023 by BigFatCoward

[polishgenius]

Whenever the childcare cost topic comes up it blows my mind how much y'all are paying. I'm not entirely sure but I think it comes to roughly five or six times as much as people do here in Germany, and Germany isn't unique or I think even the cheapest among European countries. Some of that cost is accounted for by the child-teacher ratio being a bit better (for the staff) in the UK at certain ages, but nowhere near all of it. 

[BigFatCoward]

22 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Whenever the childcare cost topic comes up it blows my mind how much y'all are paying. I'm not entirely sure but I think it comes to roughly five or six times as much as people do here in Germany, and Germany isn't unique or I think even the cheapest among European countries. Some of that cost is accounted for by the child-teacher ratio being a bit better (for the staff) in the UK at certain ages, but nowhere near all of it. 

Ours was just increased to £929 a month, for 3 days a week.  

[mormont]

 

[A wilding]

I am tempted to cheer the committee. This is the report that it would produce in a sane timeline. Somehow it has crossed over into ours.

Most of all, the report says that he:

Quote

misled the Committee, impugned the Committee and was complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.

 

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Except that by paying only for third party childcare you financially penalise parents who want to stay at home to look after their kids.  right through primary school.

When I mentioned this to my wife last night her expectation was that the set up BFC explained (ie 2 evenly split incomes still qualify at almost double the amount that gets a single income cut off) would be that it was intended to prevent "rorting" the system by families with one stay at parent. If that's the case there would be a long way to go before they'd deliberately facilitate it.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Rishi Sunak forgets which party has been in power for the last 13 years

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

one thing that would really help with childcare is not to make the childcare providers do so much paperwork and tests for each child they look after each day.  Yes some general ones a few times a year to record if the child is developing  but there is a limit to what is reasonable.

 

My Mum used to work in a nursery, one staff member in each room was constantly always stuck doing the developmental task/activities instead of actually being able to look after the kids.  Can this child count to 5, can this child know each of these colours / shapes, stand up, sit down, jump, hop, tie shoelaces ect.  each time you would run an activity as a group you need to do it several times since some kids only come mornings or afternoon and not every day.  and sometimes the kid is just being uncooperative.  This was the main reason Mum gave up work, and that was over 30 years ago.

My uncle who passed away a few years ago retired because of this. Different field, but similar issue, he was a psychiatrist who loved working with his patients, but over the years he saw fewer and fewer because he was required to do endless amounts of paperwork and he wasn't the most tech savvy guy. After a certain point he just couldn't tolerate it anymore.

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Ours was just increased to £929 a month, for 3 days a week.  

That's cheap compared to what some of my friends say they're paying. But all the same, some countries are making it so expensive to have kids and then wondering why birthrates are dropping...

[BigFatCoward]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

That's cheap compared to what some of my friends say they're paying. But all the same, some countries are making it so expensive to have kids and then wondering why birthrates are dropping...

Yeah, but mine is quite average whereas your friends are probably paying for some wanky childcare.  The UK is generally considered to be more expensive than the US, with only Switzerland and New Zealand being comparable. 

Sometimes it feels like if someone says they have been to Tenerife, you have to say you've been to Elevenerife. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Yeah, but mine is quite average whereas your friends are probably paying for some wanky childcare.  The UK is generally considered to be more expensive than the US, with only Switzerland and New Zealand being comparable. 

Sometimes it feels like if someone says they have been to Tenerife, you have to say you've been to Elevenerife. 

You're paying below average rates. The couple I have in mind was paying around the average, except they have three kids and two were always in daycare at the same time. They literally moved right next to my buddy's parents because they're retired and could watch the kids until he finally could work from home fulltime. It's just so damn expensive to have kids these days, but if we're being honest, everything has gotten so fucking expensive over the last few decades. 

[Spockydog]

Haven't we heard this somewhere before... 

 

[Spockydog]