in reply,..
reply to the coversation here
http://t-wiki.livejournal.com/12306.html
Providing childcare is probably one of the best ways to keep people working and make the country continue to grow. Why?, because somebody who is looking after children is not working AND one person looking after one/two children is far less productive than the one to 3/5/8 ratios in nursery's.
As it stands at the moment, there is little point Rutu going back to work, because the money she gets from being a pharmacist in the health service, will be the same as the cost of having the 3 children in nursery/after-school care plus travel. In which case.. why should she go back to work? , she may as well stop working for a few years (particularly as that would nicely increase our tax credits as well).
How can it possibly be better for the state that she is better off stopping working? (She will go back anyway incidentally)
And this is the situation in a fairly professional public sector job. For people in less well paid jobs they could easily end up paying double there wages in child care.
“because the bank won't give out any mortgages.” Surely that's only sensible, house prices should never have got to the current 6/7 times earns. Its not surprising that banks wont lend that anymore. Just got to wait till house prices return to their long term rate of 3 to 4 times earnings.
And it'll probably be the case, knowing GB, that it won' be just a simple take your child to nursery, it is free, it'll be more complicated tax breaks and credits.
At least for the 3 year olds' scheme at the moment, it is actually that simple, as you automatically get 5 sessions free.... the nurseries claim the cash back for you.
pfi deals currently off the balance sheet but will have to be counted at some point,
Well yes, but the traditional way is to Tax and Spend to pay for the improvements which after 18 years of neglect where needed. I have taught in schools which had corridors covered in mold and roofs falling in. the spending was needed, its just that the conservative press forced the government to go the wrong way about it.
left-or-center government for a crisis in global capitalism?
Possibly because the left of center government listened to the daily telegraph and the mail more than its own supporters and let the banks get up to all this free from effective regulation etc.
They acted like the worst forms of laize-faire right wingers and now the problems are coming home.
There have been few instances of people spending their own money for the good of the nation as a whole.
Schools.. no hang on that was government, Health.. no hang on that was government, Roads!... no hang on that was mostly government... abolishing slavery .. no hang on.... rail ways! ... yes railways.. however government had to take them over to make them work effectively after the industrial age...
if banks are going to keep failing, and the government are going to keep bailing them out, I'm all in favour of increased borrowing.
Yes however, even the Americans have worked out that of you are going to do that, you don't just give them cash. The fed took a 80% stake in AIG in exchange for the money, lets do the same things, lets take the shares. Then when the state has sorted the banks out we can chose if we will continue running them for the social good, or if we will privative them to pay back some of the money we have lost to them.
On a side this whole “too big to fail thing” worries me. Because if something is to big to fail then it can not work in a free market, because it can do what ever the hell it likes knowing the government will bail it out.
Privatizing profit , socializing risk, is not a recipe for a safe future. If something is too big to fail, then it probably would be better off being run by the government.
The last time the Left had such a golden opportunity to remake the world was probably in the 1940s... and thats why I am fed up with Labour, not because they are doing too much, but because they wont take the opportunity, being so embroiled in there own infighting as to be failing to see the world changing around them.
http://t-wiki.livejournal.com/12306.html
Providing childcare is probably one of the best ways to keep people working and make the country continue to grow. Why?, because somebody who is looking after children is not working AND one person looking after one/two children is far less productive than the one to 3/5/8 ratios in nursery's.
As it stands at the moment, there is little point Rutu going back to work, because the money she gets from being a pharmacist in the health service, will be the same as the cost of having the 3 children in nursery/after-school care plus travel. In which case.. why should she go back to work? , she may as well stop working for a few years (particularly as that would nicely increase our tax credits as well).
How can it possibly be better for the state that she is better off stopping working? (She will go back anyway incidentally)
And this is the situation in a fairly professional public sector job. For people in less well paid jobs they could easily end up paying double there wages in child care.
“because the bank won't give out any mortgages.” Surely that's only sensible, house prices should never have got to the current 6/7 times earns. Its not surprising that banks wont lend that anymore. Just got to wait till house prices return to their long term rate of 3 to 4 times earnings.
And it'll probably be the case, knowing GB, that it won' be just a simple take your child to nursery, it is free, it'll be more complicated tax breaks and credits.
At least for the 3 year olds' scheme at the moment, it is actually that simple, as you automatically get 5 sessions free.... the nurseries claim the cash back for you.
pfi deals currently off the balance sheet but will have to be counted at some point,
Well yes, but the traditional way is to Tax and Spend to pay for the improvements which after 18 years of neglect where needed. I have taught in schools which had corridors covered in mold and roofs falling in. the spending was needed, its just that the conservative press forced the government to go the wrong way about it.
left-or-center government for a crisis in global capitalism?
Possibly because the left of center government listened to the daily telegraph and the mail more than its own supporters and let the banks get up to all this free from effective regulation etc.
They acted like the worst forms of laize-faire right wingers and now the problems are coming home.
There have been few instances of people spending their own money for the good of the nation as a whole.
Schools.. no hang on that was government, Health.. no hang on that was government, Roads!... no hang on that was mostly government... abolishing slavery .. no hang on.... rail ways! ... yes railways.. however government had to take them over to make them work effectively after the industrial age...
if banks are going to keep failing, and the government are going to keep bailing them out, I'm all in favour of increased borrowing.
Yes however, even the Americans have worked out that of you are going to do that, you don't just give them cash. The fed took a 80% stake in AIG in exchange for the money, lets do the same things, lets take the shares. Then when the state has sorted the banks out we can chose if we will continue running them for the social good, or if we will privative them to pay back some of the money we have lost to them.
On a side this whole “too big to fail thing” worries me. Because if something is to big to fail then it can not work in a free market, because it can do what ever the hell it likes knowing the government will bail it out.
Privatizing profit , socializing risk, is not a recipe for a safe future. If something is too big to fail, then it probably would be better off being run by the government.
The last time the Left had such a golden opportunity to remake the world was probably in the 1940s... and thats why I am fed up with Labour, not because they are doing too much, but because they wont take the opportunity, being so embroiled in there own infighting as to be failing to see the world changing around them.