Five little boys

[Bruce]

Planedriver, that Roseville head was quite wrong. The girl should have been given extension work to do quietly by herself, or hopefully with another smart little girl after awhile. Taking a kid from their age-group is not generally a good idea. In my case, I was young for my class and this was an awful thing.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Planedriver, that Roseville head was quite wrong. The girl should have been given extension work to do quietly by herself, or hopefully with another smart little girl after awhile. Taking a kid from their age-group is not generally a good idea. In my case, I was young for my class and this was an awful thing.

I agree. In defence of the Principal: education will never get enough money in this country. If she had more funding, she could have set up a special programme or class for kids who were ahead of the pack.

 

The idea of accellerating a gifted kid thru the grades has a sad history. Ted Kaczynski was, and it didn't turn out too well.

 

Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia

 

 

[Bruce]

Jerry, there was a documentary which showed a welfare family in England where they were getting so much money that the father would have needed an executive job to get more than the welfare money. I think they were on about $50,000 welfare, all things added up.

 

How could this be true?

 

 

[Bruce]

Well Old K, I finished up better than Ted, but I was never picked to be in the footy and none of the girls wanted to be the girlfriend of a boy who was younger and smaller than they were. My grandson was deliberately started a bit later to avoid being like this, and he is in the top sports group and lots of girls want to be his friend. He is really having a great time at school.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Good to see, Bruce! In general, boys are a year (or three) behind the girls, so starting them later is often a good idea. Later, when they hit their teens the girls are well ahead physically, and the boys' brains aren't fully wired up till they're 24+. (Insurance companies know this.)

 

I've always advocated letting boys leave in year 8 and return when they're 28. Ask any tradesman about apprentices.

 

At 14 they're ready to learn. Schools won't let them leave until almost 18. By then it's often too late.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Jerry, there was a documentary which showed a welfare family in England where they were getting so much money that the father would have needed an executive job to get more than the welfare money. I think they were on about $50,000 welfare, all things added up.How could this be true?

There was an attempt by the current conservative government to limit benefits for a family to £26K (a little more for London based families). When you consider the average salary for a mechanic is £28K (Check average Vehicle Mechanic salary | Vehicle Mechanic salary information on totaljobs.com.), £50K is a lot of money. Why work and spend all that money in transport and pay tax on your £28K when you can get more? There is also some historical tie to the provision of public housing - as long as you are prepared to wait, the council have to provide you a house regardless of your salary. And once you have it, it's yours for life. As an example, the father of one of my partner's friends has a previous family and he has a 4 bedroom house in Cornwall somewhere. His wife left home and took the kids; he still has the house. While battered mothers await a two bedroom hovel and are put up in B&B, apparently, they can't move him unless he asks to be moved. Its flippin' ridiculous.

 

They are implementing a universal credit that lumps a fragmented set of benefits into one; but as per UK government incompetence lately, they have ballsed this one up, too.

 

 

[old man emu]

14 to 18 years-old - The Boredom Years.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Or lost years...

 

 

[spacesailor]

When one has 14 kids, A standard house doesn't fit your needs.

 

As for the money, a laborer's wage doesn't put enough food on the table.

 

A sister-in-law's Third husband was told by Social-Security to chuck in working & get onto the dole, so his extended family would be housed in a double (semidetached) house.

 

He still couldn't do without work & had two none paying jobs, & one were his employer payed for his annual family holiday,

 

Sadly passed away at a much too young an age. ( who said hard work never hurt anyone)

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

Wow Space, 14 kids! And I thought an aeroplane was expensive... Apparently well-cared for kids cost about $250,000 each, but luckily you don't have to pay that up front.

 

 

[Bruce]

If you look up welfare benefits in Australia, you will find that they can top $50,000 tax free, which is equivalent to $65,000 wages (on which you would have to pay about $15,000 tax.)

 

Why can't wage earners on less than $65,000 get welfare to boost their income?

 

 

[Marty_d]

If you look up welfare benefits in Australia, you will find that they can top $50,000 tax free, which is equivalent to $65,000 wages (on which you would have to pay about $15,000 tax.)Why can't wage earners on less than $65,000 get welfare to boost their income?

For someone ONLY on welfare to get that amount, they'd have to have circumstances like umpteen kids etc. In which case, if they were on a wage of less than $65,000, they would get top-up benefits such as family allowance etc. There's an income test for welfare but you're always better off on a (decent) wage than JUST on welfare.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am sort of on the fence on this one. If someone decides to have umpteen kids, then surely that is their responsibilty amd why should they get more because they decide to have that many? It provides an incentive to spawn kids to get good welfare and the cost per child decreases with the increased number of children (i.e. 2 kids to a bedroom with a 4 bedroom house and it is the same fixed costs as if you had 1 kind in a bedroom in the same 4 bedroom house). OK - if you want to live in Melbuorne, Sydney, etc, it wil be a struggle unless you live in the less than celubrous areas. But you could live in a reasonable town, say Shepparton in a 4br (so 6 kids in double bunks nicely until one becomes a teenager, at least) on a touch over 16.5k a year - let's say 17K (21 Delatite Avenue Shepparton Vic 3630 - House for Rent #422752822 - realestate.com.au). I guess medicare is still free for those on benefits, so there's no medical costs. No school costs and I guess those on benefits still get subsidised power and transport (although transport options incountry towns are usually sparse to say the least). That would leave food, clothes (and all those hand me downs means they won't have to spend as much as of they purchased for each child), etc. On the assumption that parents aren't alchies, druggies or similar, that is enough to get by on reasonably comfortably but of course, foregoing some of lifes more questionable necessities and of course benefits can be topped up through the black economy (gardening services on the cheap, etc). And this of course spawns the benefits class because why should they work and they are used to living in such conditions.

 

But on the other hand, as a society, are we not all in some way our brother's keepers? Because many people who are on benefits are so because of some form of trauma in their lives? There are some who genuinely cannot work - be that through physical or mental incapacity. There are some who are on drugs and alcohol because of the sort of lives they have been born into or led. But there are some who are just plain lazy and have had it too good.. I would be happier if we directed our benefits to those in genuine need so they can lead a decent life without having to have too many kids. The others should be given a hand to get back onto an even keel; the lazy ones, well, they shou;d be given board and food/transport vouchers and maybe a little spending money as they have to have something to do. Or I don't see a problem in working for the benefits for many (even physically deisabled people have a lot to contibute in administrative or other physical was their bodies allow, and would love to given the chance). It tajkes political will and competence. Somthing most western societies are in stark shortages of.

 

 

[Bruce]

It's the central problem of our time, how to run a nice humane society without the very means of helping those in need being exploited. Actually, I think the worst damage is done by saboteurs disguised as bleeding hearts. They work hard to defeat any reforms.

 

Prospective employers need a lot more help than they are being given if some things, like employing disabled, are to happen. Just consider it from an employers point of view, say you consider employing a disabled person around your house.

 

At present, I would be crazy to employ even an able-bodied young person here at the farm, both from financial and liability considerations. So there are hundreds of young people idling away their days while farmers in their 70's are struggling in the fields.

 

 

[nomadpete]

I'm totally against subsiding breeding. We are facing a world wide overpopulation crisis. We should be penalizing over breeding, not subsiding it.

 

Furthermore, in our westernised society, bringing children into the world IS a CHOICE. So that choice should at the very least be based on the parent's ability to feed, house and support any child they choose to have. It should not be based upon the irresponsible belief that the rest of society has a duty to help feed and house them.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree, though there are times when people made the decision when they could, but life's uncertainties has for some reason meant they can no longer (breadwinner dies in a car accident, for example and they have had the life insurance turned down and it is going through the courts -which can take years). We need a safety net for these situations a well.. Its a hard puzzle to solve.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Yes, Jerry. But those in genuine need (due to misfortune) are in the minority

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...bringing children into the world IS a CHOICE. So that choice should at the very least be based on the parent's ability to feed, house and support any child they choose to have. It should not be based upon the irresponsible belief that the rest of society has a duty to help feed and house them.

In far too many countries, that choice is taken away by religious nutters, even in the USA, where an extremist minority holds sway over the world's largest liberal democracy.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I had a girlfriend, once, who was of a certain faith but did not practice it at all. Not even during that faiths important religious calendar events - well she "celebrated" one, but it was really a time of the family getting together and spreading good cheer.

 

At some stage in our relationship, the conversation turned to the uncomfortable subject of getting married and there was no way in heaven's opposite she was not going to get married in the temple of her faith. I thought WTF? You have no connection to it at all; don't observe it and for all outwardly impressions, have no belief in it (or any other religion for that matter). For some reason there was some institutional influence and loyalty over her that even she admitted in the face of logic she could not shake.

 

 

[Bruce]

When my brother-in -law was about to get married, he asked me about a Catholic thing. His woman was Catholic, but all his older family was anti-catholic. His woman was not devout, and he could have chosen anything. My advice was to do the Catholic wedding thing to see if the rest of them would even turn up.

 

In fact they did, and they were amazed at how ordinary the ceremony was. God knows what their ignorant ideas had expected.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"It provides an incentive to spawn kids to get good"

 

Like Jack boot Johnies $3,000, a baby,

 

Anyone else would have been throw in jail for having minor's seduced by "carnal knowledge", & were are they now On the Dole of course.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

The "Solom-promise" to bring up their offspring in the Churches ways. & to pay a certain amount of their income to said church.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Dragging the thread, kicking and screaming, back onto topic. Today's hot topic, just before the start of the COAG meeting, is cyber bullying.

 

TV news stories showed classrooms full of computer monitors on desks with the kids using them. There have also been stories of plans to ban smart phones from the classroom, requiring them to be locked away during school hours. It's obvious that today's kids need to be aware of how to connect to the world via the internet, and that computers and phones are the doorways, but I think that there is an obsession with these devices. Once kids leave the classroom, these devices can become lethal weapons, used by kids who cannot properly identify Right from Wrong, firing psychological bullets that wound the mind as surely as a .22 will wound the body.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...these devices can become lethal weapons, used by kids who cannot properly identify Right from Wrong, firing psychological bullets that wound the mind as surely as a .22 will wound the body.

You've nailed it, OME.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree, but I have to admit, I still don't get cyber-bullying. What people say behing the protection of a pseudonym (sp?) shows how cowardly they are. Although, the only social network we allow our daighter on is instagram and there was a bit of an online fight going on. I doubt if it were in the playground, the insults traded would have been any different. In fact, at least the cyber-spat wasn't accompanied by fisticuffs.