Yes Poirot our kids are in a bit of a catch 22.

They want the best. My eldest daughters home is a bit of a McMansion, with all the best fittings, but it is a nice place to live. Makes her childhood home look a bit of a dump, but then a house is only somewhere to eat & sleep.

She has chosen to work from home, so she can walk the kids to & from school, & pays for that privilege with an extra hour or two after the kids are in bed. It means they have to be well disciplined so she can still work after they are home, a good side effect.

This choice does limit her earning capacity, the positions she can get, & her income, but as after school care would cost $300 or more, it does even out somewhat.

Obviously this choice is not available to all professions, more's the pity. Then again I do know women who relish their time without the kids & loath school holidays. It takes all types.

Hasbeen,

Sounds like your daughter has worked out a great compromise for a parent in 21st century Australia.

"....It means they have to be well disciplined so she can still work after they are home, a good side effect."

Important...and from my experience, children thrive on well-defined boundaries and are greatly enhanced by interacting with the older generations.

Our 12 year-old is a bit of history buff, and has researched and discovered his Nanna's grandad (who died when her father was 4) actually died and was buried in the town where we live in WA in 1896. None of her family to her knowledge had ever lived outside NSW.

Anyway, the upshot here is that he's enjoyed sharing this with his Nan and discussing her family memories. She gave me a great compliment the other week at how her grandson is so well-mannered and caring towards her.

Things like that mean a lot...should be more of it!

Robert, too many people are quick to blame governments for their own shortcomings with regards to their children, because after all, government only legislates in response to things that happen, not to things they have caused themselves.

Parents are 100% responsible for their kids and, even if they are separated, they are still responsible because One, the kids never ask to be born, and Two, the governments don't cause the problems, they just try to manage them.

Governments provide affordable schooling, but can't make kids learn. Same goes for teachers, as they too have skills to offer, but can't make a kid want to learn such skills. Although the thought of being on the street once schools days are over may make some of them think twice. It should also make some lack luster parents take more interest in their kids progress throughout life.

Even discipline , or the lack of it is not governments doing, as they have only reacted to actions by past parents.

So I do think I get the point, that being that as any parant they are your kids, and YOU are responsible for them and if they are nit disciplined, or not focussed on life after school, chances are they will left well behind, this is why I think the finacial responsibility should be a greater burden onnthe parents.

Poirot,

In some ways the 'good old days' were better - when one wage could support a family in a reasonable manner. Now, only a really high salary, or two wages, can achieve the same. But where is the fault? Consumerism, or Capitalism - where the wealthy, or the 'lucky' or the exceptionally intelligent push prices beyond the reach of the 'average'? But, is it the top echelon, the 1%, driving this price-escalation, or the burgeoning middle-class? I think it is the latter.
Middle-class salaries are arguably disproportionate - and consequently having a far greater impact, by virtue of sheer volume.
Pull down the tall poppies? Or, rein in the middle-class? Both?

Social fragmentation, increased competition, a more complex world and class disparity all combine to make life more difficult and more stressful, especially for youth. Enhanced nurturing has an uphill battle to overcome such pressures, but is greatly worth pursuing.

I have to agree with you here, Producer:

>If the human’s species continues to evolve as it is today it will destroy itself and the planet as we know it.<

So, perhaps some form of universal peaceful co-habitation is the only answer - if humanity is to have a guaranteed long-term future. But this would probably have to be under the governance of what would amount to a central 'Senate' of benevolent global dictators. An entirely new World Order. Hard to conceive, and even harder to implement or maintain. But perhaps inevitable - short of global nuclear or chemical holocaust in a power-play for world dominance.

However, I believe such a peace-based system would still have to consist of a strata conforming to individual capability and contribution to the whole. The difference could be that no-one of low capacity could hold any position of dominance or power, and wealth would be more equitably distributed. The 'filthy-rich' would be a thing of the past - of the Decadent Age.

Saltpetre,

Lol!...I read somewhere (don't know if it's accurate) that in Greek democracy, the populace got to vote once a year for their least favourite politician - who was subsequently banished.

Some merit in that - for keeping the bastards honest.

: )

Has been,

You claim that I must be “unaware that Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong among others have all lifted their population from poverty to wealth, many to now be well above Oz, by growing their economy” as if to make stated reply to my mere mention of the Indian and China examples [where much wealth is yet to trickle down] to indicate [to you in some alternate reality somewhere] that I think that NO non-western economies of wealth have given over to the poor.

I fail to follow your logic here, as I never pretended to be unaware of Japan, South Korea etc. I merely wished to note that the seemingly accepted universal rule that - richer economy equates to poorer becoming richer – is in fact NOT universal at all.

Besides, the level of sharing in ANY culture/nation depends upon the culture of the particular people, such that whilst Japan may give over to the poor a bit more than China does there are still many other short-falls compared with most western nations when it come to other moral and legal egalitarian matters [e.g. Koreans born in Japan from parents who were in Japanese war camps in WWII may live in Japan today but are denied citizenship or ability to buy land etc.].

And I do see that “[primarily but not solely] the bigger economy generated by the industrial revolution that lifted the Poms out of poverty.” However whilst the advances made in those regards did get us to the point in Australia (at least) where the average low-skilled poorer family could quite easily purchase land and a house to raise the family before the parents were 40 and with usually only 1 earner, since WWII and the massive global shift of all labour jobs to cheap labour Asian markets coupled with extreme population increases has led to those advances all but being deleted to where the average poorer family today CANNOT expect to be able to purchase a house even if [usually] 2 earners help.