But I think there are generalisations that can be made that are accurate, but generalisations about all people on a benefit and?

Kyle: possibly one problem is this. Suppose the risk of problem X happening is tiny,?

"Oh no, it's not you we are talking about, it's those other DPB mums." Uh yeah, and who are they exactly?

Yeah, I used to get this when I was on an Invalids' Benefit. Which, not co-incidentally, was when my children were at kindergarten. My partner wasn't working because I?

I will call them out.

Good job, Jackie.

My dad passed away when I was very young. Mum was on a (partial) benefit and worked part-time while I was at school. And you know what? She was a damned hard working woman, and an excellent parent. I got a lot of harassment at school, mostly from my?

Happens an awful lot with health screening programmes. People are told their chances will improve by a relative amount like 50% but not that they still have say a 249 out of 250 chance of dying of something else altogether or never having the problem at all.

The diference there?

Kyle: possibly one problem is this. Suppose the risk of problem X happening is tiny, maybe 1 in 10,000. Suppose a certain group "G" has double that risk, so 2 in 10,000.

I'm not sure it's so useful in the abstract, but let's put your doubling figures in the real?

And can I just say Russell that I was a bit shocked by your request, but thank you so much for letting me do this

I know when a person has something to say.

I will call them out.

Thanks Jackie, you've bought facts and experience to debunk myth and prejudice. I spent most of the first 18 years of my life in Mangere, living and going to school. I get heartily sick of the shit that's heaped on my home town.

One of my sisters – a highly trained nurse- became a beneficiary when her husband left her for someone else. She had 3 kids, one just 4. She had left where her husband lived, and moved to another area – so the neighbours and the playcentre?

I'm going to go for a walk in the forest now. Thank god the forest is there, so close to my door. It's wonderful place to hide and sob in.

Thank you.

as opposed to Russells description:

"A 45 year-old man — quiet and god-fearing, apparently — was unable to accept the end of?

But, I just want to play devil's advocate for a second, to run a suggestion by you...

Seeing as attendance at kindy is not compulsory, could it be that you are already seeing a self-selected group of good parents? (ie. parent that?

Generalizations do sometimes have their place, but it always seems that if a "face" or "faces" are put to the "them" of the "us and them", it becomes impossible to carry on generalizing. This is especially so when a negative generalization is taking place....easy to?

I think Cresswell's point was far more to do with the fact that he was a recidivist criminal than the colour of his skin or socio economic group.

No it wasn't Cresswell didn't know that. My original point was that Cresswell had depicted a wave of random street violence --?

It's also interesting to me that these studies always emphasise the demographics of the perpetrators but totally overlook the demographics of the victims. There's a pretty obvious subtext at work there.

Demographics of perps is consistently collected by the police. Victims – I don't know if police collect it at?

I spent the first 8 months of this year on the dole – not for the lifestyle (rock'n'roll though it was, scrounging to cover expenses) – trying to find a job in the field I'm qualified for.

after settling for a much less interesting, less well-paid, more time-consuming?

while working 60+ hour weeks

Including weekends, which is why the kids don't recognise you and the wife is having an affair/wanting a divorce/depressed. (take yer pick).

Job sharing. I'm all for it. If someone is working 60+ hours a week, then employ two people (where possible) instead.

__Hmm, I?

Don Brash disagrees with you

Got relatively close to being PM a while ago. That's a list of new right talking points, scary.

"Got relatively close to being PM a while ago"

and if that smiley Key guy would just kindly step aside those same talking points would be National party policy by lunchtime...

At the end of the day, weakening the welfare state, regardless of its merits or not, is false economy. What anti-welfarists might save in taxes, they'd probably lose in increased spending on personal security

This is particularly true, and having seen the rise and rise of the?

and if that smiley Key guy would just kindly step aside those same talking points would be National party policy by lunchtime

Or if he can just win them the next election. I, and many others I suspect, am far from convinced that National are not using the first term?

The State in my opinion should build an altar to people like you who care for other people. Because, at the end of the day, you matter more than you will ever know.

So...we are doing the right thing by having child care centres so that parents (both...?) can go?

There's definitely something quite sick about libertarians. Stuff the elderly and infirm; stuff the young and their mums; screw the workers – they only hold back the generation of wealth for those who?

while working 60+ hour weeks away from their kids, I wonder? (not to diss you if you are in this situation, 'tis the world we've made)

Yes, this situation is really bumming me out at the moment. I keep telling myself it's temporary, that normal working hours are just around?

Gosh. Take a bit of the stress off the familly wouldn't it.

Not convinced about that, Ross. Constant childcare is pretty wearying and isolating for a lot of people. Going to work, at least part time, is a real mental health godsend for some. Then the time they do spend?

"A society that really valued children wouldnt be so cruel to those trying to raise them alone."

Agreed, Hilary Stace. Indeed, a society that really valued *children* would put them foremost.

The 2 matters go together, Isabel & Hilary's comments.

Our society seems to value?

A society that really valued children wouldn't be so cruel to those trying to raise them alone.

Indeed, a society that really valued *children* would put them foremost.

That reminds me of a Gene 'Demon' Simmons (of all people) quote.

Kids should?

Tony "education is bad for the taxpayer" Ryall

gotta say Ryall on the telly tonight, made me rather angry (chatting with an interviewer in a matching suit) spouting words to the effect that the 220 school boards, parents, etc refusing to implement National Standards were doing so for political reasons...?

gotta say Ryall on the telly tonight, made me rather angry (chatting with an interviewer in a matching suit)

When did he become 'Acting Minister of Education' (suggesting he is only pretending to be a minister?).

What is it with those guy and their mis-matched striped suits and shirts and?

But I think the point?

gotta say Ryall on the telly tonight, made me rather angry (chatting with an interviewer in a matching suit)

Speaking of suits. From a SCIBLOG blog about the ?Re-setting science and innovation (in NZ) for the next 20 years?

The second talk that stood out for me was?

What elevated concepts such as harshness and hardness to the forefront of our social inventory and what compels them to retain this position?

1. Capitalism building on patriarchy.
2. The apparent paradox that we can't challenge these ideas safely unless we are in a position of power over those who?

How much worse can the National Standards dispute get? Somehow it isn't yet DEFCON1, but it's close at the very least.

Actually, I think I know partly?

It's the kids. They ooze life, preschoolers.

Yes. there's no question that working with young un's is some of the hardest work there is . It takes bundles of patience and energy while requiring the most delicate sensitivity. I'd never have what it takes.

desiderium

Thanks for this word Islander,?

the endless march of parenting, alone

Yes. Beautifully said, Che. I've felt it myself, but only from time to time when my husband has been away, once for over a month. It was hard, hard, work. But I had support, and I knew it would end. It must be so?

gotta say Ryall on the telly tonight, made me rather angry

He pissed me off too when he said this decision by the schools to boycott sending in their targets to the MOE was going to jeopardise the children's education. It's not going to change what's happening in the classroom?

It's the kids. They ooze life, preschoolers.

I've just been reading a book on this – called The Life that Lives on Man – we are real estate for a plethora of beasties from bacterium to bed-bugs...
:- )

But I know what you mean, Kindergartens and Playcentres are great?

[Ryall] pissed me off too when he said this decision by the schools to boycott sending in their targets to the MOE was going to jeopardise the children's education.

Massey education academics say it's ill-tested standards that are likely to harm children.

Dr O'Neill suspected most boards and parents were becoming?

So...we are doing the right thing by having child care centres so that parents (both...?) can go out to work and be acceptable contributors to society.

It's a question my wife and I wrestle with. We've got two kids at home, one 5+ and one almost eighteen months, and we?

I don't think having kids in care is necessarily worse than being at home fulltime provided the care is good and the children benefit.

Fear not! The Hand Mirror linked to a study which basically proved this, quite recently (does anyone have that link, she asks lazily?). At the moment?

I've just been reading a book on this – called The Life that Lives on Man – we are real estate for a plethora of beasties from bacterium to bed-bugs...

:- )

Yes, kids are particularly contagious.

But I know what you mean, Kindergartens and Playcentres are great incubators for?

Tolley is elsewhere for a while

Pretty certain she has always been on another planet

i know the boy is there somewhere in the room with me,... he needs me no longer.

This,
Poetry.
Missing you and your words which, you just brought to light .and it took a fine woman. :)

Sadly far too many of them are caught in the poverty trap without developing the basic educational tools (academic and behavioural) to fight their way out. By the time Year 11, 12, 13 roll around the ships sailed.

Hey sorry Yamis but, isn't that where we figure out that your?

and there's a TEDx global site now, for fans

Thanks for the link, Sacha. :)

What do people think about married couples who are both unemployed most of the time but continue to add to their family despite the fact they are already in state housing...

Hi Yamis: the trouble is, when you start to pass judgement on individuals it's hard not to turn that?

Did you go?

Yep

(I'll stop there so as not to hijack the thread any more than I already have. Even though I have sooo many questions!)

It's great that your neighbours are doing a good job – maybe they'll produce really good citizens, who understand life from the inside.

Plus, life is so unpredictable. I live in a bit of a rough area, and one of the girls in the next street over used to play?

one part of my ancestry, Vikings from the Orkneys, purported to worship various gods (mainly aspects of nature.) The one true -element – rather than god/ess- they actually worshipped was luck...

If you read saga, again and again, 'luck' is?

So turns the wheel of fortune...

"Help". One of of english's lovelier words. :)

I have to crash for now.?

Shit.

Luck, luck, luck

-it was never always good-

The question itself is an oblique angle on the abortion law.

I don't wish to get into this conversation other than to sign post it.

Vikings from the Orkneys, purported to worship various gods (mainly aspects of nature.)

including otters...?

I don't think it's a question of dividing up the same pool of money between those with and those without children, or comparing their value.

With any finite pool of money if you make decision to fund one thing then you are by default choosing not to fund something else.?

And then what may be of use....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=player_embedded

I have one big quibble with this but I'll let it ride for the mo'

Bart: Please feel free to use my name when you are addressing my argument.

What do people think about married couples who are both unemployed most of the time but continue to add to their family despite the fact they are already?

Here's another thought to add to the discussion regarding large families: paying family benefit for each extra child is just a cost of the system, and we should grin and bear it, cheerfully.

I'm not a fan of Working for Families, because?

I Have people coming for Guy Fawkes in 38 minutes. I have just posted a long piece on another thread. I msut go check my 15 year old is?

when they really checked whakapapa, there was this huge history of twins...

human?

how does this idea not impoverish all children of larger families? It's not their fault which family they're born into. And how many children are the result of planned pregnancies, anyhow?

This is why I much prefer thinking in terms of the child's entitlement. The benefit is not paid for?

having more children would just become less about the money than it presently is.

This is one of the most depressing sentences I have ever read.

You really can't stop people having kids.

I'm no rightie, but how does that mean other people are obliged to pay for them?

Instead why not make sure the things the child should be getting are really free.

That appeals

is a whole ball of worms:

speaking as someone who has TWO highly trained midwife sisters, who have both worked here as domicillary midwives & in OZ, I know that all the wrong things are provided for a new born & Mum?

"the things the child should be getting" are really free-

is a whole ball of worms:

Didn't say it would be easy

I don't think the choice to create?

Which clearly isn't going to be the case, it would cost us tens of billions of dollars?

(Basically, we're now framing this conversation the way the right wing wants us to, aren't we?)

Yes, and it honestly never ceases to amaze me.

And who is weaker and more vulnerable than a child?

People who had more than three children would have them because they wanted to.

Implies choice.

1. People don't always make good choices.

2. People?

There's a difference between supporting children's current and future needs and setting up social arrangements that encourage parents to make more children.

a) Let's see some proof that they do, that people actually have children just for the money.

b) how is there a difference? I mean, in practical terms,?

discourage (ie punish) parents

By saying there is no unlimited right to have children? Hardly seems to qualify as harm or punishment.

Also, from a 'grrr, them's my taxes' point of view, what's the difference between one family with six kids, and three families with two kids?

Ah, but one family with six children is *profligate*! And also, that means they have been fucking with wild abandon, which is *icky*! Poverty-stricken families?

It's not, in fact, like this is actually a problem, is it?

Rampant bludging by breeding, no. The environment and social impacts of overpopulation or reduced quality of life/attention/resources for children from families living beyond their local means, possibly.

I'm interested in understanding how it might play into the theme?

By saying there is no unlimited right to have children? Hardly seems to qualify as harm or punishment.

If you're planning to just SAY it, no. Were you? Or, to repeat my previous question, how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h45WnW0ASFY

Do chip in.

This discussion is creepy.

How is it "punishment" for parents if society says it will only pay for say 3 children as others have suggested upthread? We can certainly agree its punishment for the children involved, but that's exactly what?

they're reasons such a process could never be implemented without injustice

As I acknowledged up front, and thank you for elaborating. However, it doesn't seem to provide a particularly convincing defense against the Lindsay Mitchells of this world, let alone those murmuring watchers of One News who aren't wedded to?

Why would any particular family need to have 8 children in this day and age when they're all likely to survive into adulthood?

WTH kind of a question is that?

These aren't niggly little details that could be worked out in implementation, they're reasons such a process could never be implemented without injustice.

But then reproductive rights are, well, a right, so injustice would be built in, no? And even if you somehow accepted that there is an objective number?

let's look after them more and better

I support decent tax-funded services for all children.

Why would any particular family need to have 8 children in this day and age when they're all likely to survive into adulthood?

To look after me when I'm old, because my ex and I and our new spouses have exactly one child between us, and she's going to be?

You may be opposed to eugenics, but unfortunately, your arguments seem to suggest that you aren't.

Fascinating. I've said clearly why I'm interested in this.

I have no broader agenda to stop people breeding. I've not said anything about preventing it for either individuals or groups, only about the competing?

She has 8 – the last of whom are twins. Now, she and her husband are self employed. They bring in quite a lot of dosh. Imagine if he or she died. Imagine if their business turned to shit.

Jackie, I believe you're conflating supporting children who already exist with?

To step back for a moment, I have to agree with Danielle:

Funnily enough,?

And in Europe there's all sorts of consiracy paranoia about the 'revenge of the cradle' and 'Eurabia' amongst certain hardline circles, such as Geert Wilders and Bat Ye'or. Surprisingly, the self-proclaimed libertarian Wilders is known?

How do you think other members of society might think about that proposition? Again, I'm talking about competing claims, not about whether there's a basic right to reproduce or about what makes a good parent.

I feel fine. Next!

Slightly more seriously, we do a lot of things that might?

How do you think other members of society might think about that proposition?

Well, OK, let me get a bit more meta. Why do we always have to frame our arguments in terms of making some niggardly, meanspirited douche grudgingly accept something? Why can't we just say 'fuck that guy!?

Why do we always have to frame our arguments in terms of making some niggardly, meanspirited douche grudgingly accept something?

Because I want to have these discussions with open-minded thinking nice people so I can understand the complexities of the issues.

If we don't have these discussions then the only?

Why do we always have to frame our arguments in terms of making some niggardly, meanspirited douche grudgingly accept something? Why can't we just say 'fuck that guy! He's an asshole!'?

Oh, sometimes we can. Usually when we don't need to persuade such people politically or personally to consent to?

Are we suffering from a surplus of children in the country? No.

I agree this country has no surplus. But I disagree that this planet has no surplus. I am reluctant to ignore the planet as a whole simply because our little bit of it is jus? fine. I'd also?

Surely we don't think only fecund parents will be rorting the system?

But that?s not the point. They aren?t rorting the system they are rorting the children, intentionally or unintentionally. Our tendency is to focus solutions on the parents, by taxation or benefits. I argue if you focus the solution?

You may be opposed to eugenics, but unfortunately, your arguments seem to suggest that you aren't.

Unfair Jackie. Sasha has been really clear and his arguments are nothing like eugenics.

The point is reproducing is a responsibility and and not a right. It isn?t something to protected legally.

I believe it is actually protected. Just subject to balance against other rights.

his arguments are nothing like eugenics

Apparently they sound closer than I would like them to. I welcome help avoiding that.

It's a sign to me that we're falling into the same trap as Bill English by focusing only on costs rather than using our shared strengths to increase opportunities and value. Mindset is?

I?ll also argue that those people who do have big families are doing some harm to our planet ? less harm than any merchant banker but more harm than a family of 2 or 3 children

So a family with no children would be even better for the planet? Or?

I have no children. I've never wanted to have children, being the kind of human I am – BUT! Some of my sibs have?

Maybe we could see children as something other than a liability or a cost to society.

Yeah, it's all a bit too "save the rainforest, sterilise a Brazilian".

Still, having spent rather a lot of time lately visiting at the old folks' home, I'm noticing how at least 50% of?

through
thorough
trough
thought
though
tough
bough
lough

If we keep improving productivity, sustainability and the effectiveness of social supports then none of this matters.

It's a sign to me that we're falling into the same trap as Bill English by focusing only on costs rather than using our shared strengths to increase opportunities and value. Mindset is?

- we do look after our own – but frequently, we need support from the state.

Once it's down to palliative care, the state is pretty much the only option for me and mine. Even if I knew where to buy morphine, my abilities don't extend beyond pushing the buzzer?

Since this person despised my mother marrying my father...I am not, in my financially compromised current situation,?

i think Bart is pointing out that we inhabit a finite planet with finite resources.

And I wonder how many 'exploit the earth or die – it's not a threat, it's a fact' types have been to Nauru or Easter Island?

do all of you really think that humanity can just carry on digging up, pumping out, etc., forever?

And the best way to stop this from happening is preventing people from having more than the officially sanctioned number of children? Really?

I?ll also argue that those people who do have big families are doing some harm to our planet ? less harm than any merchant banker but more harm than?

Whilst infinite expansion is unlikely to be tenable on Earth, I don't think we really know the actual figures on what this planet can support with real?

So a family with no children would be even better for the planet? Or maybe we should all kill ourselves to achieve the best outcome for the planet?

and

Without children, we have no continuance

and

"save the rainforest, sterilise a Brazilian"

and

And the best way to stop this?

and who should pay for that etc

Actually most of the discussion has been about how to pay for the best care of the children. With a strong thread of "that family rorting the system by having lots of babies is a myth".

Who is obvious ... all of us.

Worth remembering that the most populous country on the planet is now also the most productive (industrially). Humans are resources, at some level.

Yeah but would you move there (to Changzou say) as a lifestyle choice. And dont pretend you are a poor farmers child with no other choices or?

We have some Prof. David Suzuki tickets – and this is his last lecture series before retiring into obscurity. He's here?

much as I hate this lecture

typo?

much as I hate this lecture
typo?

Arrrgh, yes, very typo. Much as I hate to miss this lecture, we are double booked...

I find it offensive that Ehrlich's Population Bomb arguments come up in a thread on Jackie's lovely post about the families she works with.

No they didn't until you brought them and I find that really disappointing since you could have been constructive.

What was said was we need to?

the 'number of children' thing was a passing suggestion by someone on another thread

Actually, I've checked and I'm wrong about that. First, Yamis raised the issue of family size and resources upthread.

What do people think about married couples who are both unemployed most of the time but continue?

No they didn't until you brought them and I find that really disappointing since you could have been constructive.

This is where I thought you invoked the population bomb argument:

I?ll also argue that those people who do have big families are doing some harm to our planet ? less?

Yeah but would you move there (to Changzou say) as a lifestyle choice.

No, but as you say, that's just me. I would also not move to South Auckland. It's not my 'hood. But I'm not about to say they should stop making babies down there, so I don't have?

Dont you mean use not receive. And whys that then?

Actually, I meant both. We don't use all of what we get, and we don't get all of what is there. The first ratio is much smaller than the second, though – from the Sun, the Earth looks like a?

the population bomb argument

I, along with Martin, am finding this to be a sort?

(Just a technical point, you understand).

Oh? So the resemblance is more than I'd thought.

My irredeemable nerdiness means that I heard this in Leonard-Nimoy-voice.

Gotcha! My Kirk voice says it simpler "Where do you get the RIGHT to try to control us???", shortly before banging one of the alien?

It is utterly inappropriate to consider declining population a threat to our species at this point.

Bart, I didn't, and I don't. As you've gone to the trouble of quoting my facetious "sterilise a Brazilian" line as if it were something that I'd offered in all seriousness then I'm moved?

Some bring treasures with them. Others are never seen again.

Oh Ben you gloss over so much with a little statement like this, which appears to give balance.
That wobbly middle ground again.