In the New Scientist recently was an article about what the authors call pathological altruism. They cite the case of a woman who lured her estranged husband to her home, then coldbloodedly shot him first in the back, then again and having killed him, disposed of the body very carefully. Despite the facts of the case being clear, there is apparently a group of supporters who believe she is a victim, rather than a perpetrator. These people hold to this view in spite of the clear facts of the case. You may need to register to view the story

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128290.300-the-dark-side-of-altruism.html?full=true

They say: "A pathological altruist is someone who is sincerely motivated to help others, but whose supposedly altruistic acts have harmful consequences."

I believe this has become endemic in our society and informs a lot of the advocacy that has so contaminated the debate on social welfare. I'd go further and suggest that some Sociology departments, especially the Gender studies branch of places like UniSa, LAtrobe, Uni of Wollongong, Uni of NSW, have become dominated by such pathological altruists. I've called such people "victimologists", but that doesn't properly describe the pathological nature of their behaviours.

The pathology is evident in the way facts are regarded as subordinate to intent. In other words, "selctive use/misuse of information", to quote Charles Pragnell (who is associated with a group based around UniSA) is perfectly reasonable if one is doing it for "the right reasons". The pathology has been used by less scrupulous types to manipulate public discussion, or "progressively frame the debate" as George Lakoff put it.

The Family Law is another area in which these pathological altruists wreak havoc. Education is another, even healthcare has become skewed through such a pathology, with huge money being spent on some areas and much less on other areas of need at least as great, simply because of misdirected altruism.

So what do we do about it? Do we need to do anything, or will it run its course once the boomtimes end?

Antiseptic

Examples of pathological altruism abound. It well describes many of the so-called asylum seeker "activists."

Back in the 1920s Lenin called those susceptible to pathological altruism "useful fools." So this has been going on for a long time and, no, I don't think it will fade away

Decisions about health and education are tied to more than just altruism. There are many other influences, pressures and biases from various lobby groups. Maybe sometimes those decisions will be flawed. If you mean the 'do gooder' sydrome there is nothing wrong with that if there is some rationale to the 'cause'.

If pathological altruism leads to bad ends I guess it defeats the purpose of helping others. One definition states pathological altruism is more damaging to the giver when altruism becomes so self-sacrificing the individual suffers as a consequence.

Sometimes people do kill in self defence and that is recognised widely by the Courts. (I did not register to read the particulars of the case you refer.) Altruism is a desire to help others and maybe in relation to justice to identify shades of grey. It is a difficult area because victims and their families may not be satisfied by the outcome of a trial in all cases. Sometimes the accused may also incur a harsher than necessary punishment as well - pathological altruism may work both ways in these sorts of scenarios.

It is a bit like Left and Right politics, over time the excesses of one ideology usually lead to it's demise with a move to the centre or the 'opposite'. When that cycle or trend becomes extreme with bad outcomes, the opposite happens again in a push pull cycle. One big balancing act.

As long as the opposite of pathological altruism is not to ignore victims altogether and withdraw all supports because it has becme politically incorrect or unpopular, that would be an equally bad scenario. Balance is rarely achieved to everybody's satisfaction.

Dear Antiseptic,

You said; “The Family Law is another area in which these pathological altruists wreak havoc. Education is another, even healthcare has become skewed through such a pathology, with huge money being spent on some areas and much less on other areas of need at least as great, simply because of misdirected altruism.”.

However without solid examples there isn't much to debate. How about giving us something decent to get our teeth into because it might turn into a good discussion, though probably along idealogical lines.

Here is one to get us started. The teachers at my kid's state school will readily admit that 60% of their time is spent on 20% of the students. I understand that in a State school there is far less inclination to 'weed out' disruptive, or high need children from a class. I suppose I am exhibiting a kind of altruism since I do believe in the societal benefits of my kids and their peers accommodating those with differing abilities and those coming from a range of different circumstances.

Dear stephenlmeyer,

The same goes for you. You claim; “Examples of pathological altruism abound. It well describes many of the so-called asylum seeker "activists."”. What? Were the efforts by the Australian government and various church groups to take in large numbers of Jewish immigrants after WW2 'pathological altruism'? Please explain a little further if you would.

Pelican, I'm not referring to those who are pushing a barrow necessarily. There are all sorts of reasons for people to want to agitate for some aoutcome or other, including simple self-interest. I'm more interested in the people who are very sincerely motivated to create a good outcome for others, but whose efforts are so misdirected that bad outcomes occur. If the supporters of the murderous woman discussed in the OP had their way, there would have been a bad miscarriage of justice, for example. They simply refuse to believe facts that contradict their preformed view of her as a victim and as we all know from the decades of propaganda, victims can never be blamed for anything.

csteele, you're right, it was a thin start. I think the common factor I'm looking at is the tendency to reduce complex matters to overly-simplistic dichotomies in which there is a "villain" and a "hero" and very often a "victim" that the hero is "rescuing", whether the victim needs it or not. Here's a few examples of the sort of thing I'm refering to.

In the Family Law: approximately 80% of all FL matters are resolved without intervention. Of the remainder, approximately 80% are resolved without recourse to the Court - through mediation and consent orders - meaning only about 5% of all family law matters end up in court. Of that 5%, nearly all involve either large property disputes or children's matters or both and nearly all involve some allegation of violence, usually of a pretty minor nature, such as shouting or mutual argumentation. Yet, if we believe the advocates, "family violence" is an apparently enormous problem, that needs urgent changes to the FLA to "protect children". The reality and the pathological construct are at odds with each other and the pathology is coming out on top. If the current changes go through, as seems likely, many kids will suffer separation from their fathers because some small number of families can't get on.

[cont]

A similar type of pathology occurs in healthcare, where the altruism of Glen McGrath, having lost his wife to breast cancer, has lead to the establishment of the McGrath foundation and the widespread success of "Pink Ribbon Day". However, this has a dark side, as well, with the Cancer Council making the point last year that other cancers have more impact and receive less funding, while the McGrath foundation has large cash reserves and has exceeded its funding requiements. In terms of population health generally, Aboriginal outcomes are much worse than for other groups, yet I can't recall anyone suggesting we have a "Black Ribbon" day to raise funds for Aboriginal health research. Pathological altruists tend to prefer to help those they can identify with, I suspect.

Similarly, in education we have had a massive effort to create "safe" schools and to stamp out bullying. This is leading to unprecedented rates of suspensions and expulsions. I would also suggest that it is leading to a cohort of people who will have little capacity for resilience in the face of unpleasant behaviours and is creating a group of students that will suffer life-long disadvantage through having missed out on important school opportunities because they were identified by pathological altruists as being "perpetrators" and therefore less worthy of consideration.

Further, in education there is a massive disconnect between the results that boys achieve and those of girls, largely as a result of altruistic intentions to make schooling more accessible to girls. Boys now make up only about 2/5 of the students at university, yet the pathology continues, with no abatement.

There are many, many other examples of the ways in which public policy is being skewed to the detriment of all by the best of intentions, manipulated by those with less than pure intentions of their own. The point of Newspeak was to pervert people's perceptions, after all. Some call this "debate framing".

On the subject of the academic side of things that I mentioned earlier, the field of social constructionism is rich with the pathologically altruistic, especially those departments that identify primarily as Feminist. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that Feminism is an ideology that is reliant on such pathology.

A grat deal of the output of the departments I mentioned is concerned with Feminist discourse and attempts to justify special treatment for women. Now I'm not suggesting that anyone who wants to help women is pathological, but a quick perusal of the outputs of the departments mentioned will show a clear prefernce for a social construction that has "man as violent brute to be controlled and burdened with obligations/woman as idealised paragon to be exalted and freed of all responsibility for outcomes". This fits well with a Victorian middle-class view but is not terribly helpful in a world in which women are competing with men as equals, doing the same work, competing for the same opportunities. Instead, it creates conflict and discord and taints the normal sense of mutual obligation that informs most people's personal relationships. Men are not to be given the option of exercising their finer feelings - they are to be compelled to act in certain ways even if they would have chosen to do so anyway. In other words, good actions receive no credit, while actions defined as "not good" receive much opprobrium, whether genuinely bad, or simply not in the "good" set.

In another thread, someone made the point that we are no longer assumed to be able to do whatever is not prohibited, we are constrained by what is permitted, often for the best of reasons. Qld even has a law relating to participating in "unregulated high-risk activity". I think that is pathological.

Dear Antiseptic,

Can I try and trim the broad brush a little.

Firstly to Family Law. Are you not as guilty as those you accuse when you draw from your statistics the conclusion that family violence is only an issue in only a few cases of 5% of 20% of a further 20% of the whole? A recent fairly amicable divorce close to our family that didn't get near the Family Court certainly had potentially serious violence issues associated with the relationship. In another case one of my in-laws was stabbed 19 times by her divorced husband. Would her record at the Family Court show up in your statistics as non-violent? Probably.

You state; “Yet, if we believe the advocates, "family violence" is an apparently enormous problem, that needs urgent changes to the FLA to "protect children".”

We don't need advocates telling us there is a problem when we have cases in my state of father's throwing their daughters off the Westgate Bridge or driving their three kids into a dam to drown. The rightful feeling of utter horror at these deaths surely warrant calls from the community to have their government act to combat such violence. I would hardly call this 'pathological altruism'.

To health, One easily imagines Glen McGrath's work in setting up and promoting the Foundation as probably being very cathartic for him and his family but one would need to look closely at the donation figures for cancer funding to decide if there has been a pathological result. I suspect while there may well have been some skewing of which cancers receive the most funds there will have almost certainly been a bigger pie because of his efforts. As it is often only the realised result that can determine if an altruistic act is pathological we are left with the conclusion that as an aggregate altruism is a good thing and we wouldn't want to dissuade the community from engaging in it. What would you have had Mr McGrath do instead?

Cont..

Cont..

You said “Pathological altruists tend to prefer to help those they can identify with, I suspect.”.

Surely all altruists exhibit this tendency. Why should the pathological ones, if they exist, be any different?

To education. There is currently a rush to private school driven, in part, by the belief that the lack of discipline and out of control bullying is rampant in public schools. It is hardly an altruistic act to send one's child to a private school nor is it altruistic to want to disruptive and bullying children removed from the school be it public or private. I can imagine a far more substantial case being made about pathological altruism against those advocating the retention of these students within a school body to the obvious detriment of other students and their outcomes.

The issue of the boy/girl ratios at university is in part a furphy. I have a child doing VCE at the moment. Many boys at their school are not focussed on high ENTER scores but on gaining apprenticeships. A case in point is one of my nieces who is slogging her way through full time employment and a part time uni course while her boyfriend of the same age who works in a trade and pays more tax than her annual wage. Both are only a couple of years out of school. Many of the jobs the current boom is delivering are male orientated. Women now need to chase university degrees to have even the slightest hope of competing in wage parity.

I'm willing to concede this is probably a personal perception thing but many of your examples and arguments tend to have you yourself coming off as the victim. I'm sure there are stronger examples out there to support your position but the chatter from 'ivory tower feminists' doesn't support the conclusion that pathological altruism “has become endemic in our society and informs a lot of the advocacy that has so contaminated the debate on social welfare.”

If your primary issue is with the Family Law then perhaps we should focus on that.

'I suspect while there may well have been some skewing of which cancers receive the most funds there will have almost certainly been a bigger pie because of his efforts. As it is often only the realised result that can determine if an altruistic act is pathological we are left with the conclusion that as an aggregate altruism is a good thing and we wouldn't want to dissuade the community from engaging in it. '

Sounds like the trickle down effect to me. Who cares about the divide between rich and poor. Somehow I doubt a simliarly generous appraisal of 'Big Business' from one csteele.

'I can imagine a far more substantial case being made about pathological altruism against those advocating the retention of these students within a school body to the obvious detriment of other students and their outcomes. '

Wow! Perhaps there's been a personality change. Will the real csteele please stand up!

'"selctive use/misuse of information", to quote Charles Pragnell '

I'll Dorothy Dixer you anti! Please provide links.

I admire that kind of honesty. Like when MrRabbit said don't take everything I say as concrete policy and they all shouted 'Liar'!

I'm happy with the acceptance of the fact people will do and say anyhting to further their agenda. Mr Rabbit does it, ALL lobby groups do it, and so does Juliar.

In summary, as I have said before, I am no longer shockled by 1 in 3 that 50% that, epidemic, crisis, any quoting of any 'statistics'. Espicially the economy losing $Billions a year.

IT IS ALL CRAP.

No matter how 'altruistic' the motives, I say, f^ck em all!

Zero tolerance. Don't believe the Hype!

The more any charitity claims 100% of people are victims of xyz, it makes me all the less inclined to give them anything.

f^ck em all! Liars the lot of them.

The ends does not justify the means.

On the heads of every PR department, every marketer, every self-serving career-building advocate and shrill statistics screaching awareness raiser is the ZERO dollars I will give to any of these charlatans.

Want me to wear a red nose? F^ck Off!

Want me to wear a little badge? F^ck Off!

Want me to grow a moustache? F^ck Off!

Want me to wear jeans today? F^ck Off!

Want me to wear pink for..? F^ck Off!

Want me to cry a river or look shocked and concerned for your 1 in 3 people yada yad? F^ck Off! F^ck Off! F^ck Off!

I AM ALREADY AWARE OF WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE 'RAISING AWARENESS' ie SPREADING PROPAGANDA ABOUT.

ALL CHARITY SHOULD BE GIVEN ANONYMOUSLY AND DISCRETELY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO GRANDSTRAND ABOUT.

Play all the violins you want call me anything under the sun but I really couldn't give a toss about your conspicuous 'caring'. If I want to care, I'll do it in private, with dignity (No red nose, in jeans I wear every day) without making a big f^cking song and dance full of deception and lies and hypocracy.

Anti, Somebody in the thread - sorry but I lost track - said “Pathological altruists tend to prefer to help those they can identify with, I suspect.” and this is the crux of the problem and makes me think that it is more useful to describe this sort of behaviour as 'tribalism'.

Tribalism is a recognised psychological term, based on the idea that behaviour is based on the idea that we evolved in small tribal groups and so the sort of behaviour that goes with tribalism still motivates us. Members of a tribal group support each other no matter what - no rule of law type of thinking. The group member is always right and the outsider always wrong.

It seems to me that the people referred to in the Scientific American article, who support this woman as a victim of male violence, despite all the contrary evidence, are part of a tribe; a tribe who support women against men no matter what.

They have a type of psychological functioning - based on brain chemistry and neuronal connectivity - that makes them more able to ignore any disconfirming evidence. It seems that it is highly emotive issues that allow the worst examples of irrationality - is that a word?

I don't think there is any need to make up a new term when there are already more 'basic' terms to describe the behaviour and I'm not convinced that the behaviour is pathological or altruistic.

Dear Houlle,

Lol! Sorry but I'm getting a vision of you arse up in a state run old folks home having your backside wiped by some poor nursing student as you scream f^ck off at the top of your lungs. My sister-in-law works in the dementia ward of a geriatric institution and that phrase has become the most overworked two words in the place, though you seemed to do your best. For the sake of the poor young, seriously underpaid future aged care workers you probably need to tone it down a touch.

The real csteele is still here, I was just in an altruistic mood and thus wanting to put Anti on the right path to make his case. He is more than welcome to tell me to f^ck off. 

I in turn might attempt to show how private and selective education has real community and societal costs thus we all lose. Ultimately you probably see the role and legitimacy of community as serving the individual's needs, I on the other hand see the value in both and see an obligation on all of us to support and nurture our communities, even those hell bent on telling the rest of us to f^ck off. Thus I will not be begrudging you a spot in the system when and if you need it.

So I can still put you down as a believer in the trickle down affect csteele?

When it suits of course. A selective believer perhaps. It works for sufferers of 'unpopular' cancers but not for the general community or in broad economic terms it seems.

No old home for me, I have other plans when the time comes. That's a prime example of what I am on about though. See I would be sympathetic to the carers in old homes, but my empathy has been eroded by the feminists using their plight to further their dishonest gender wage gap propaganda.

I seek out charities that don't employ cheap degrading stunts or abuse statistics to 'raise awareness' thanks.

It is unethical anyway to spend my charity dollars on red noses and other such inanity. I cant believe they have the hide to openly waste donator's dollars in such a way.

I used to donate to such people and make a point out of rejecting their ridiculous paraphenalia, but I one day decided I would donate to causes that didn't spit in the face of people who donate by so openly wasting their donations on such frivolity.

Houellebecq, I'm not convinced that it's Charles posting as ChazP (an idea that Antiseptic is championing) but the post was at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833

It was in part a follow on from one of your own posts http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212507 and my making an issue of the deception involved in the earlier posts by ChazP.

R0bert

Thanks for the responses folks, some interesting ideas.

Csteele:"Are you not as guilty as those you accuse when you draw from your statistics the conclusion that family violence is only an issue in only a few cases of 5% of 20% of a further 20% of the whole?"

No. I'm quoting a very simple stat relating to the Law that is easily checkable and is not based on any kind of value judgement. I haven't chosen a "villain" or a "hero" or a "victim", but you do in your very next sentence: "potentially serious violence" makes no sense as a determinant of anything. The tendency to generalise from the particular is pathological in that it takes no account of the facts, just the "potential". Do you have trouble getting up in the morning? the day has the "potential" to work out badly; every bus that goes past has the "potential" to suddenly swerve and run you down. What a pathology!

Don't worry, this sort of pathology fills the Family Courts day after day, fostered by distinctly UNpathological lawyers and carried by the army of advocates who infest the supporting services and inform the politics.

You mention the Freeman case, but you don't mention the literally thousands and thosands of cases in which no genuine violence occurs. That's pathological for decision-making.

McGrath has been wildly successful, beyond his dreams perhaps and certainly beyond the needs of the particular cancer he is seeking to promote. Because his charity is linked exclusively to one group of victims, he is taking away money from other victims. I'm not suggesting McGrath is in any way other than a paragon of virtue, but his altruistic drive is producing outcomes that could be better if better-directed. A sure sign of the pathology is the way the Foundation has gone to great lengths to justify their focus in the face of highly-credentialed, independent experts saying we could do with a bit less focus on boobs and a bit more on lungs and prostates and bowels and skin.

[cont]

McGrath may change the focus of hs group, which would be a highly altruistic thing to do, given the reason for setting it up was as a memorial to his wife's death from breast cancer. If he continues in the same way as he is going, he will hurt as many people as he is helping with funds, by bleeding money that could be better used.

The reason boys choose trades is simple: they've been competing with the girls at paperwork for years and are well aware that they're not up to it. Teachers have been telling them so since they started school: putting them in the back of the class, sending them to detention for being rowdy, dosing them up with ritalin to make them less so, pasting stickers everywhere saying "girls can do anything", while the boys get handouts saying "have you considered a trade?". The only male spaces in the schools are sport and manual arts. Even when the facts are pointed out, the pathological try to deny it: "a furphy". Nope, pathological altruism, leading to a social upheaval that has really only just started to be felt. Your niece and her boyfriend will experience very different earnings trajectories. She will continue to grow her income with seniority and his will languish, unless he manages to either start his own business or chooses to go and work somewhere not very nice for very long hours. I work in the construction industry and I know a large number of tradsmen who haven't had any income at all for several weeks now. Two of them have gone to work on Ausaid projects in the Solomon Islands, which is dangerous and isolated, because they can't get work here.

It's not just in Australia. GHere's a piece about Malaysia

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/malaysia-to-encourage-boys-to-go-to-university/story-e6frgcjx-1226134541117

sounds great, but the second line in tells a different story:Deputy education minister Wee Ka Siong said Malaysia was planning to introduce vocational training at schools from 2013 so that pupils can hone practical skills, such as repairing cars, to prevent males from dropping out."

It's pathological.

[cont]

Anti

Do you think it was 'pathological' when back in the early C20, men believed that females were less evolved than males, that their brains were made of softer tissue, etc.

Unless you are using the term 'pathological' in a medical sense, it is a 'value judgement' and of course we do need to make value judgements to get through the day but if we want to make a rational society, rather than sucumb to the tribal mentality, we need to examine these judgements and ensure that they are based on rationality, fairness and reciprocity.

For sure, if one has been a victim of 'feminist violence', as many fellas here seem to have been, this is difficult because of the primary role of the emotions in our judgements and the way evolution has equipped our brains to solve social problems.

Speaking as a victim of male violence, I found the way to move on and not be driven to anger and a need to 'blame', which only brings more unhappiness, was to deliberately put myself in my ex's shoes and try to understand why someone I loved could behave so badly and be so cruel.

Understanding human behaviour in non-judgemental terms, is the key to being able to change things

Dear Antiseptic,

I get the feeling I am standing in front of you with a large insect net trying to catch all the butterflies issued forth every time you open your mouth. While I'm not sure where each is headed it is admittedly entertaining.

Best start at the beginning. I think you are getting confused between reality and statistics. Further you are indeed making a value judgement when you call 'family violence' a pathological construct. My examples were pertinent to my point that violence in a relationship is not routinely exposed at divorce proceedings since as your own statistics reveal most settlements do not get the stage where full disclosure is felt to be warranted by either party. For many it is shameful and kept private.

As to my judgement regarding the potential violence in a relationship, having been very close to the family of the earlier episode I would think my antenna for such things was pretty good, but ultimately it is a value judgement so another source perhaps. In a regional town close-by there is a report in today's paper regarding 700 family interventions a Christian welfare organisation made last financial year. There was a wide range of requests for assistance in areas such as financial, gambling, homelessness, alcohol etc. however by far the largest reason at a whopping 58% was family violence. Doesn't your determination to think the issue is a furphy speak to a evident pathology?

But let's tend to your statement “"potentially serious violence" makes no sense as a determinant of anything. The tendency to generalise from the particular is pathological in that it takes no account of the facts, just the "potential".

For the sake of argument, and because you have run without including the word 'altruism', I am happy to explore this further. If you truly believe what you have written how do you assess the billions spent on counter terrorism, the serious erosion of civil liberties and the continuing loss of Australian lives all for the notion of 'potentially serious violence' which has yet to eventuate on our shores?

Cont..

Cont..

Further why do we continue to hear the argument used as the reason for locking boat arrivals up behind razor wire for months if not years when not one has been shown to be a terrorist intent on harming Australians? If you want to call this a pathology then you have my vote.

The Freeman case has seen the erection of barriers on top of the West Gate bridge which certainly obscure what had been spectacular views. Yet millions of car trips are made across it with no violence occurring. Is this the type of pathological decision making you are talking about?

You said ; “Your niece and her boyfriend will experience very different earnings trajectories. She will continue to grow her income with seniority and his will languish, unless he manages to either start his own business or chooses to go and work somewhere not very nice for very long hours.”. Nope, not a chance. He is on well over six figures and she is doing a degree in childcare. She will never even get close. I also do work in the construction industry and a plastering mate of mine is able to send four kids to a top end private school and own a home in the most affluent area of town. He prefers employing Grammar kids as apprentices as they are the most compliant and there are plenty of takers. In nearly thirty years of being around building sites and meeting hundreds if not thousands of tradespeople I can only recall meeting two women with tools in their hands although there are plenty doing the clean-up before hand-overs.

As to McGrath without better figures we will have to agree to disagree.

We might call holding on to old ideas when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming a pathology but I just think it is part of the grumpiness and stubbornness that comes with old age. If you are not over fifty Antiseptic then there is definitely something wrong.

Mollydukes, the pathology lies in the failure to look for any kind of contradictory evidence. I don't know if anybody believed the things you say, but if they did, it was pathological if there was evidence to the contrary. If there were only guesses on both sides, then it's not pathological, although it may still lead to poor outcomes.

The determining factor is the focus on the small whilst ignoring the large. Thus csteele focusses on the Darcy Freeman cas eand ignores the harm done to the large majority by draconian laws. It's pathological.

The article on aboriginal chldren not being given blood-screening tests because it might upset them is another example. The benefit they might gain is ignored because of the small pain and upset they might be caused.

csteele:"you call 'family violence' a pathological construct"

I don't. The pathology is in the pretence that it is universal. It happens in some cases, but not all or even most. Very often it occurs as an emergent feature of a relationship breaking down rather than being causative, therefore, making it THE central part of any family law dispute is not merely wrong, it is wrong-headed and pathological. It doesn't address the real factors that lead to the breakdown or the violence and it doesn't lead to fair outcomes.

csteele:"how do you assess the billions spent on counter terrorism [etc]"

As a waste of money for the most part, but not an act of pathological altruism. The people making the spending and other decisions around these subjects have vested interests. Altruism implies no personal benefit.

The Westgate Bridge barriers and similar ones elsewhere are not pathological altruism, because there is no unforeseen and ignored impact that creates a bad outcome. The view may be obscured, but that was known and understood before the decision to install them was made and it was acceoted as a reasonable tradeoff. Besides, there's nothing altruistic about it - it's simple nannyism.

On the subject of the construction industry, you may be getting confused by the high wages that have been available to some tradesmen in Victoria through the artificial construction boom of the early part of this century. I did very well from 2005-2009 in my business, with a major slump in 2010 and this year I'm closing the doors. Why? Simply becasue there is no demand for my products becasue there is no activity in the sector, at any scale. Even large firms like Leightons are unable to hold staff and sub-contractors are in real trouble.

If your niece chose to work in childcare, she effectively chose a lower-skilled path that does not really require a university qualification. She made a bad choice, but that doesn't invalidate the general proposition. Nonetheless, she will continue in work relaibly whilst her boyfriend is in and out of work as the industry demands.