Nearly 1 million children faced destitution in the UK in 2022..

People without children are suffering hardship too. Maybe their parents should have used contraception too

Anyone paid a large salary is always scapegoated ronib. The market determines salaries and bonuses. undines, I ‘spread the abundance’ pretty well whilst on the highest rate of tax. I also give to charity, but my choice is animals who have no voice or government help.

ronib

Don’t understand why investment bankers are being scapegoated for society’s failures. Investors fund life saving cancer research and treatments. What life saving research is involved in kicking a ball into a goal? What hypocrisy - football is a very overrated and hugely overpaid sport which keeps the masses happy and in their place.

Aha, now you're talking ronib. Famous footballers very often come from the poorest of backgrounds. Many have grown up in the slums, they have had very little education, little food on the table, and poor medical care, (I think it was Neymar's mother who couldn't afford ante natal blood tests and scans). Ronaldo is a prime example:
His father was an alcoholic, his mother had a tough time raising four kids, that almost led to her aborting Ronaldo. At school he was expelled at 14 for throwing a chair at a teacher. He must have really pulled his (football) socks up and got stuck in with his childhood dream! Of course, talent plays a big part.
(Sorry, footballers are my speciality thanks to DGS' bedtime reading!)

Oh, and sorry again in advance, I forgot this thread mustn't be about an individual's experiences used to make a relevant point.

JaneJudge

I had a disabled child and my husband worked, it was still bloody difficult

JaneJudge
Me too ♥️ Our son went to a special school and if ever there was a representative society it was there. A real mix of families/circumstances many individuals here (by chance) will not have come across.
We were 'hidden families' in many ways.

Doodledog re cultural norms. This is so very true and very sad. It's the cause of lots of problems, eg crime. Prisoners released go back to 'their norm'. don't know the solution.

In this country we reward failure. Former PMs and Chancellors who were briefly in office, who caused chaos for millions with poorly thought out policies get to keep their pensions
CEOs who perform poorly get massive bonuses …. As a country we ignore this and the DWP persecute the poor who are struggling to survive. Aided by the bbc who sugarcoat the news and ignore big uncomfortable stories ie homeless March
People are becoming too self absorbed and ignoring the horrendous things the ConParty have done
Don’t get me started on partygate

Joseann

ronib

Don’t understand why investment bankers are being scapegoated for society’s failures. Investors fund life saving cancer research and treatments. What life saving research is involved in kicking a ball into a goal? What hypocrisy - football is a very overrated and hugely overpaid sport which keeps the masses happy and in their place.

Aha, now you're talking ronib. Famous footballers very often come from the poorest of backgrounds. Many have grown up in the slums, they have had very little education, little food on the table, and poor medical care, (I think it was Neymar's mother who couldn't afford ante natal blood tests and scans). Ronaldo is a prime example:
His father was an alcoholic, his mother had a tough time raising four kids, that almost led to her aborting Ronaldo. At school he was expelled at 14 for throwing a chair at a teacher. He must have really pulled his (football) socks up and got stuck in with his childhood dream! Of course, talent plays a big part.
(Sorry, footballers are my speciality thanks to DGS' bedtime reading!)

Not in this country. Children with talent are spotted from the an early age and taken into the big teams' football academies. There their lives are regimented and their behaviour controlled. Age for recruitment is between 7-20 with an average of 13. It is rare for any footballer to enter into Premier League football after the age of 20. Some children are recruited aged 7.

Spot on Glorianny our friend is a football scout. He travels across the U.K. watching grassroots games looking for talented youngsters.

Brigidsdaughter

JaneJudge

I had a disabled child and my husband worked, it was still bloody difficult

JaneJudge
Me too ♥️ Our son went to a special school and if ever there was a representative society it was there. A real mix of families/circumstances many individuals here (by chance) will not have come across.
We were 'hidden families' in many ways.

Yes, I completely agree. Having a child with a severe disability is a real leveller for most people

GrannyGravy13

Spot on Glorianny our friend is a football scout. He travels across the U.K. watching grassroots games looking for talented youngsters.

I remember a football scout coming to watch and to give the presentations at the local club DS played for when he was young.
His speech included advising the boys that, if they wanted t succeed at football, there was no point staying on at school to take 'A' levels.
The boys loved this, the parents were furious!

Of course, not every child who is picked goes on to succeed as a professional footballer and they need to have other qualifications to fall back on.

GrannyGravy13

Spot on Glorianny our friend is a football scout. He travels across the U.K. watching grassroots games looking for talented youngsters.

Yep, DGS is signed with 2 League clubs at 8 years old, but his heroes (role models) come from very humble roots, admittedly not this country, is what I meant about aspirations. It's tough, and the parents, sonetimes disadvantaged, have to devote their lives to it too.

any sport, the parents have devote their lives to it!

Rugby is interesting but much more elitist. Clubs have links with academies and universities. 16-18s attend the school and train with the club and some get scholarships to universities where they play and train with both teams.

JaneJudge

any sport, the parents have devote their lives to it!

Yes, but if they themselves are poor it is extra difficult.

Glorianny

Rugby is interesting but much more elitist. Clubs have links with academies and universities. 16-18s attend the school and train with the club and some get scholarships to universities where they play and train with both teams.

Yes. And many aspiring players in are taken from private schools!

of course and not having a car/mode of transport would be the first hurdle if you don;t live in a large town or city

Glorianny

Rugby is interesting but much more elitist. Clubs have links with academies and universities. 16-18s attend the school and train with the club and some get scholarships to universities where they play and train with both teams.

I don't think it's as elitist as it was.
It had the reputation of being rather 'public school' but not any more.

Callistemon21

Glorianny

Rugby is interesting but much more elitist. Clubs have links with academies and universities. 16-18s attend the school and train with the club and some get scholarships to universities where they play and train with both teams.

I don't think it's as elitist as it was.
It had the reputation of being rather 'public school' but not any more.

That was Rugby Union.

Rugby League was a far more working class game...

Sorry for a long post, but I don't think this is a simple problem.

The number of sports people who earn huge amounts is tiny, yet they are always dragged into discussions about inequality. I wonder if it's because football, along with 'celebrity' is a way for people with very humble roots to earn lots of money, and people resent it. A footballer (or an 'influencer') is not playing by the rules of middle class success, and is working outside of their cultural norms.

We pretend that we live in a meritocracy, and that this is why some people are on the breadline and others 'deserve' to earn sums that would lift large numbers of others out of that. Some occupations are given higher status than others, with financial rewards to reflect that, but if we deconstruct the reasoning it really doesn't hold up. 'Hard work' is impossible to define, but we can measure hours, stress, competitive edge, and so on, and when we do that it becomes less easy to argue that any of the things we use to explain someone's merit is particular to that occupation.

Yes, successful professionals often put in long hours. So do security guards, for a tiny fraction of the pay. Yes, there are stresses associated with areas such as finance, but nobody is going to bash a banker over the head to get at a safe, and that is a real risk for a security guard, and is undeniably stressful. Yes, entrepreneurs have to have an eye for what sells, and how to maximise opportunities, but 'influencers' do that too - their work is every bit as dependent on their last video as an entrepreneur's depends on his or her last deal. Yes, a top surgeon has to have talent, but so does a footballer. And so on.

So we come to the old argument that it is down to market forces, and that anyone can work in a shop or on a production line, but only very few can operate on our bodies or brains (for example). This is very true, but this is where the meritocracy argument falls down - we (as a society) deliberately limit high levels of education to a chosen few, and deny access to more people the further up the qualifications ladder they want to go.

Someone whose mother is a surgeon is far more likely to go to a school with a strong 'success ethos' than the daughter of a shop worker, for instance. They are, therefore, much more likely to get good exam results (pretty much regardless of ability) and therefore move up the education ladder. They will get on a medical course much more easily, as their parents will be able to help with filling in forms that are deliberately designed to be exclusive. A factory worker's son will be hampered there, even if he has the same A level scores, which were significantly more difficult for him to achieve.

For those who overcome that hurdle there is the issue of 'fitting in' both at university and in the workplace. We see even on here how many people still go on about their grammar school, or 'good' university when they left them decades ago. The UK is a snobbish society which places a lot of store on which educational establishments people attend, probably because access to prestigious ones has been limited and protected since the abolition of state grammar schools. So just by saying that you went to CLC and Cambridge you have the advantage over someone going to Bash Street Comp and Grottytown Poly.

Then there is the cost of an education. Yes, loans mean that nothing is paid up front, which means that parents don't have to fork out, but rents for student accommodation are very high, and living expenses mean that without parental support, poorer students have to work as well as study - a level playing field?

Some professions are very hard to break into unless you have connections. Getting a place in Chambers is one example, but there are others. Interestingly, when printers and typesetters behaved in a similar way, it was considered 'restrictive', but that's by the way.

I won't go on further, but there are many other possible examples. I really don't think that we live in anything close to a meritocracy, and without that to prop up prejudice it gets more difficult to look down on or blame others for not doing as well as we have.

Cultural norms, as mentioned earlier play a big part, but so does access to role models. I can't remember the figures now, but recently read that 'a lot' of people don't know anyone who could sign a passport application for instance. They know nobody in a professional or paraprofessional role, so how will they find out about the range of jobs and careers that are possible, or think that they could do that?

When people are living at a subsistence level the norm is often to have more children, as they provide a support network, emotionally and practically. Children give a purpose to a life that may lack it, and in cultures where people rarely move more than a few streets away, families can offer support in older age, babysitting, pooled resources and so on. If you don't expect to have to pay for education, and don't value cultural experiences there is less incentive to think about what you 'can afford' for your children. As long as they can be fed, housed and clothed until they have their own children, that's what matters. When the goalposts move, and housing, food and fuel shoot up in price, then of course that is exposed as a risky strategy, but it does explain why the middle class norm of deferring gratification and limiting spending to what can be afforded doesn't apply. If you can't afford anything, what's the point?

Excellent, well-thought through post Doodledog.

I would add that the middle class also cheer on things that would never be acceptable for themselves or their children therefore ensuring their children retain the advantage. So this could be sex work is work or it could be refusing to look at the issues faced by children who have no fathers present in their life. It doesnt impact their children so it's very easy to cheer it on.

My daughter in law is a partner in a City law firm. She spent a long time mentoring an Asian girl in an inner-city school in a deprived part of London with whom her firm fostered links. The girl was bright and had been put forward for mentoring but she was totally disinterested in any form of work. Cultural norms perhaps. Such a waste of a golden opportunity.

Who knows, GSM. Without knowing anything about the girl it's impossible to say. I would be disappointed if she were my daughter, but then I am a product of my own culture, and do value that sort of success.

Maybe she felt that fitting in would be impossible (and being a token 'poor kid' would require emotional maturity that may have been beyond her years), or maybe any of a number of things, but on the face of it it does seem a waste. OTOH, the odds are that success would have taken her out of her family and social sphere, and maybe not leaving that was a deliberate decision. Maybe she will regret that later, or maybe not.

And thanks, gs.