Parents

[Pensive]

Should both parents go out to work when their children are very young? Is it okay for the children to be left at the disposal of nannies/grandparents/homes for children? Or should there be some special circumstances only under which you think parents should go out to work (such as extreme need of money to pay some debt or something or having some less severe job)? Does it even make any difference? How far do you think children need attention and care of their parents? What are your views regarding this matter?

[Bakiryu]

I think parents should work that way when said child wants to go to college they can at least cover some expenses without going even deeper into debt. Children don't really need that much attention, besides they're young, they won't remember! And then at age 5 they'll be at school.

I think if that if my father hadn't been home all the time when I was little I would be less self-centered, thanks to him my subconscious still thinks that people ought to be there for me. See!? That's the damage we're doing to our children.

[TheFifthElement]

Interesting but difficult subject Pensieve.

I think, for most parents, they don't feel like they have a choice, and largely I think this is due to society becoming increasingly materialistic and advertising driven. Whilst we could all manage perfectly well without a TV (I wish!) imagine being the child going into school without those things that their peer group consider to be 'basics'? It doesn't even need to go that far, for a lot of parents because the cost of living has increased and, particularly in the UK, house prices, often there is no choice but for both parents to work in order to keep a roof over their heads.

As to what is best for the children. Hmm, that's a difficult one. My son went to nursery from the age of 6 months and he's turned out just fine. Nursery had advantages in terms of getting him used to being away from his parents, as well as giving him an opportunity to socialise with other children. That being said, if there was a large 'at home' population you could still achieve that in your local community without having to leave your child with a childminder or nursery. But I have also seen the other side. A couple of years ago, when my daughter was 3, my husband was made redundant, and while he was looking for work we had to scale back our costs and we had to pull our daughter out of nursery, and our son out of pre-school/after-school club. The difference we saw, particularly in my son who was in school now, was massive. His behaviour improved, he was able to concentrate better in school, and a large part of this was because he was no longer so tired from getting up so early, and having such a long day away from home. Now when I get home from work both my children are happy, which wasn't necessarily the case before, they have play time in the home not just 'admin' time where as an adult you're just 'dealing' with them, and for the child they're just eating then going to bed. We decided that the improvement in their general wellbeing was so much more important than money, and my husband has not gone back to work. This means that, financially, we have to downscale, we are (attempting to) moving to a smaller house, and closer to school/amenities so that we can lose a car and use the one we have less, making it more cost effective. But we are lucky that we're in a position where that is possible, for a lot of families that just isn't an option, they're struggling to keep hold of the small things they have.

So, I don't think any parent should be made to feel guilty about how they approach their childcare, whether that's staying at home, using childcare services, or relatives. It is difficult enough, parenting, without the constant outside scrutiny of people telling you what you 'should be' doing, telling you what's 'best', especially because these often conflict and what's 'best' for one isn't 'best' for another. Sometimes it feels like you can't do right for doing wrong, and I know there are a lot of parents who struggle with that because, ultimately, they want to do the right thing by their children. As long as parents care for their children, take responsibility, and consider the child's interests then however they manage it, that should be good enough.

[kasie]

Fifth - good post - thank you, you've got to the heart of the matter.

Bakiryo - oh, yes, those early years do matter! That's when all the basics are laid down, language, social skills, patterns of thinking and curiosity, sense of self.

[pussnboots]

Should both parents go out to work when their children are very young? Is it okay for the children to be left at the disposal of nannies/grandparents/homes for children? Or should there be some special circumstances only under which you think parents should go out to work (such as extreme need of money to pay some debt or something or having some less severe job)? Does it even make any difference? How far do you think children need attention and care of their parents? What are your views regarding this matter?

I think that this thread is going to have varying opinions going both ways.
To me, I don't think parents have much of a choice these days. Prices on everything are going up and most parents want to be able to provide for their family and live comfortably.
I don't have any children yet but I don't see anything wrong with leaving your child with a nanny or grandparent or even putting them in daycare. I think its good that babies/toddlers/children get an early start in the socialization process.
I don't think the majority of people really want to work but if they want to live a certain lifestyle then you do what you have to do. People can't rely on the government for everything.
As to the question of "how far do you think children need attention and care of their parents" - my answer to that is it should never stop. Parental responsibilities should not end when the child reaches 18 or 21.

[motherhubbard]

I’ve been staying home with our children for the majority of the past fourteen years. In that time I have taken my children to my full time job, worked from home, had a farm with very flexible hours so that I wouldn’t have to leave my young children, worked full time and had to leave them, been unemployed, and been a full time student but still able to stay home except for maybe six hours a week.

We decided in the beginning that we wanted to keep the children home while they were young and we have made a lot of sacrifices to do that. Our friends have chosen to work and they have a lot more stuff than we have, but we don’t have the same problems with their children that they have. It does make a difference when a parent is home with a child. I saw my own children languish in child care. Now, if they had been in the system from the beginning I would not have recognized the effects. Having been both a stay home and a go to work mom I can tell you that (at least for me) working placed a strain on the mother baby relationship. Nights were more difficult, attentions were divided, crankiness was greater for mom and baby.

I agree with fifth- parents want what is best for their children and they try to do what is best. We can’t make people feel bad for doing their best. I know that I’ve been made to feel bad for depriving my children of the social interaction found in day care even though we have a good social network with many other children for them to play with. I’ve also been told that my children would become so dependent on me that it would stifle them. However, I have very secure and independent children. I know it’s just as bad for those who work. It seems that as a mother we can’t win.

I would encourage every mother to try to stay home with her children. There are many creative ways to make money and even more creative ways to save money. When I consider my working peers I’m glad for my decision. My youngest will soon be in school and I can go to work. We have done without many of the luxuries that money can buy but we have something so much greater. My kids also appreciate that I’ve been home with them. The girls are glad to do without things so that I can be home with the boys. They plan to stay home with their own children. My husband and I will be happy to help the children make that work

[Shalot]

Preschool is the way to go, I think. If I had a baby, I would want to spend as much time with her while she's an infant. And being with her during the day as she grows into a toddler seems like it would be awesome as well. And then around the age of 3 or 4, a good preschool would be beneficial for the mother and the child. Mothers who spend all day with small children need to get away and have adult conversations. And children benefit from playing and interacting with other children during the day.

Unfortunately child care like that is expensive. When I was 15, I had a toddler brother and my mom had to work and be the sole breadwinner so it was necessary to find child care for him. One of the places we took him was just awful. He came home unhappy. Then, my mom found a better facility and he was much happier when he came home from there. I am not sure what my dad was doing at the time. It seems like he moved out of state to work for a while. Then, he was home with my brother for a while during the day so my brother experienced both situations. It wasn't planned that way (my parents were just trying to keep their heads above water) but I think a mixture of the two is the way to go.

In the ideal family situation, where only one parent had to work and it was enough to cover all necessities, the child still needs to go to preschool or a good daycare for at least a little while.

Although, I've heard horror stories from my coworkers about picking their kids up from daycare only to find the child sitting there in a poopy diaper even though they provided their own diapers for the child etc... and you hear all these news stories about crappy daycares and children being strapped into a car seat on a hot day.

Then again, there are some really good mothers, and it's just up to the parent as far as what they can do with the resources they have, including money and patience. And I am not saying that anyone who does choose to keep their child at home with them is being a bad parent or making the wrong decision. But, if it were me, and all was right with my world, I would still send them to preschool for at least some of the time. I would want to spend some time with my child and I would want my child in a structured GOOD preschool-daycare facility. If I ever picked my child up from daycare and she was in a poopy diaper, I would go off.

[Scheherazade]

Even though she has started the thread, we haven't heard Pensive's thoughts on the issue yet. :)

Isn't it interesting that we are not actually talking about "parents" here but "mothers" here?

[Nightshade]

Isn't it interesting that we are not actually talking about "parents" here but "mothers" here?

yes and doesnt that say something about how much society has really changed in the recent years?
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/Night-D/msn_sarcastic-1.png

[TheFifthElement]

Isn't it interesting that we are not actually talking about "parents" here but "mothers" here?

Not so: in my family I work, and my husband provides the day to day childcare.

Shalot, it's interesting what you said about pre-school. I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in UK once a child reaches 3 years old the government guarantees 2.5 days pre-school care each week during the school term. Quite often this can be provided by the school that, ultimately, the child will go to, so you get the best of both worlds, 'parental' time and socialisation, as well as the opportunity for the child to become familiar with the school environment so the transition, when they come to go to school, is not so difficult.

[dramasnot6]

I have always suspected that I would,personally, assume the 'primary breadwinner with workaholism' role in my procreational family. I would,like my mother did with me, spend a lot of time with my children before they are of school age, but I doubt I could ever 'not work' entirely. There isn't a 'work or stay at home' simplicity to the question, there are many in-between shades of part-time jobs and work leave.
Of course,I wouldn't want to be the sole breadwinner, but I would not want my kids to have to suffer with two workaholic,constantly out-of-the-house parents,either. Both of my parents have always worked, but my dad has been away at the office or(more often) traveling overseas for the vast majority of my childhood. My mother has usually taken up more casual, 9-5 jobs so that most of my life she has been there to drop me off at school in the morning and spend some time with me after school. Unfortunately and fortunately,I see myself adopting a role more similar to my father's, but really,in the end, it's not so much the amount of time each parent spends with their children that counts, but the quality of childcare and emotional support that they give their kids.
One just has to set their priorities and try to establish and maintain a healthy balance of priorities. If you decide to raise a family with a partner,it is usually a good idea to be with someone who has a very similar idea of how they wants things to be run in terms of time/money/work/kids.

[The Atheist]

I would encourage every mother to try to stay home with her children.

*Ahem*


Isn't it interesting that we are not actually talking about "parents" here but "mothers" here?

**AHEM!!**

Stay-home dad here!

Having had a first son who attended daycare fulltime, my [second] wife and I decided to bring the kids up entirely ourselves and neither of our two children have spent any care time elsewhere.

I'm just lucky that I've been able to combine work with childcare by working from a home office.

[Scheherazade]

Not so: in my family I work, and my husband provides the day to day childcare.

Stay-home dad here!TheFifthElement and The Atheist> I think you would both agree that you are in -lucky- minority in reference to this.

I actually know only one stay-home dad personally (who used to be a student of mine). Otherwise, all my friends are either full-time mothers or it is their responsibility to arrange their work and family responsibilities so that they do not clash.
I don't think any parent should be made to feel guilty about how they approach their childcare, whether that's staying at home, using childcare services, or relatives. It is difficult enough, parenting, without the constant outside scrutiny of people telling you what you 'should be' doing, telling you what's 'best', especially because these often conflict and what's 'best' for one isn't 'best' for another. Sometimes it feels like you can't do right for doing wrong, and I know there are a lot of parents who struggle with that because, ultimately, they want to do the right thing by their children. As long as parents care for their children, take responsibility, and consider the child's interests then however they manage it, that should be good enough.I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment.

[Dori]

Should both parents go out to work when their children are very young? Is it okay for the children to be left at the disposal of nannies/grandparents/homes for children? Or should there be some special circumstances only under which you think parents should go out to work (such as extreme need of money to pay some debt or something or having some less severe job)? Does it even make any difference? How far do you think children need attention and care of their parents? What are your views regarding this matter?

In today's society, though I'm surely no expert on this subject, I believe that parents---both parents---should work out a system for their own family that works. Finding a relative of some sort to babysit at times is probably the best care that could be given apart from direct parental care. Fortunately for me, I was put into probably one of the most ideal situations, my mom running a day care throughout my entire youth and eventually getting a job at a preschool once we aged. Though, I can't say I've had a solid father figure during my life. My mom divorced and remarried, but it was for the best, I think.


I think parents should work that way when said child wants to go to college they can at least cover some expenses without going even deeper into debt. Children don't really need that much attention, besides they're young, they won't remember! And then at age 5 they'll be at school.

I think if that if my father hadn't been home all the time when I was little I would be less self-centered, thanks to him my subconscious still thinks that people ought to be there for me. See!? That's the damage we're doing to our children.

Infants, from what I've taken from my psychology class, are generally only subject to infantile amnesia during the first two years of their existence. I still have memories from my early youth, though they are relatively sketchy at this point. For instance, I remember always watching the cartoon movie "The Hobbit".

And don't let my mom hear your comment ("Children don't really need that much attention"); she majored in early childhood development. :D I benefitted from a stay-at-home mom who ran a day care at home throughout my early youth.


Fifth - good post - thank you, you've got to the heart of the matter.

Bakiryo - oh, yes, those early years do matter! That's when all the basics are laid down, language, social skills, patterns of thinking and curiosity, sense of self.

This is an interesting point to bring up right now: do children already possess a natural, innate capacity for basic language or not? I believe it is the linguist Noam Chromsky who advocates the former position of this argument.


As to the question of "how far do you think children need attention and care of their parents" - my answer to that is it should never stop. Parental responsibilities should not end when the child reaches 18 or 21.

Amen.

[motherhubbard]

Stay-home dad here!



I love that you’re a stay home dad and I wish you would change that avatar. I guess I’m a little bit of a sexist:p . I do know one stay home dad and he is very well suited to the job, but for the most part I think of women managing the majority of the child care during the first three or four years. A lot of that may be my own selfishness. I don’t like to share the little ones.

[Virgil]

Interesting but difficult subject Pensieve.

I think, for most parents, they don't feel like they have a choice, and largely I think this is due to society becoming increasingly materialistic and advertising driven. Whilst we could all manage perfectly well without a TV (I wish!) imagine being the child going into school without those things that their peer group consider to be 'basics'? It doesn't even need to go that far, for a lot of parents because the cost of living has increased and, particularly in the UK, house prices, often there is no choice but for both parents to work in order to keep a roof over their heads.


Just wanted to address house prices. Same thing goes for most cities in the US as well. But I believe the house prices got out of sight when women entered the work force in mass and created two income earning families. At that point families had buying power, i.e, more money to spend on a house and that drove the price of houses up. Supply and demand. The supply of housing stayed the same but the demand (the now greater number of people who could meet the loan criterias) went up. It drove the prices of houses up as they competed for houses. The prices of houses rose to meet what people now had available to spend. So the fact that it requires two wage earners to own a home in most big cities is greatly due to women now working when they didn't in the past. It's an odd economic fact but the price of things that don't have natural competition like the housing market will match what you have to spend.

[Jozanny]

I think the primary issue, over and above which parent works, or doesn't, is the health of the relationship between the parents. If it is a bad one, the children have the odds against them. Parents need to be as much aware of their own emotional health as they do their own child rearing choices.

[Shalot]

Just wanted to address house prices. Same thing goes for most cities in the US as well. But I believe the house prices got out of sight when women entered the work force in mass and created two income earning families. At that point families had buying power, i.e, more money to spend on a house and that drove the price of houses up. Supply and demand. The supply of housing stayed the same but the demand (the now greater number of people who could meet the loan criterias) went up. It drove the prices of houses up as they competed for houses. The prices of houses rose to meet what people now had available to spend. So the fact that it requires two wage earners to own a home in most big cities is greatly due to women now working when they didn't in the past. It's an odd economic fact but the price of things that don't have natural competition like the housing market will match what you have to spend.

okay. women shouldn't have jobs. those damn women and their jobs, driving up the cost of housing. That's the issue right there. that cuts right to the heart of the matter.

[motherhubbard]

okay. women shouldn't have jobs. those damn women and their jobs, driving up the cost of housing. That's the issue right there. that cuts right to the heart of the matter.

that's just what I was thinking! I say we string up Rosie the Riviter!
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Rosie-the-Riveter-Tin-Sign-C11751163.jpeg

[TheFifthElement]

Just wanted to address house prices. Same thing goes for most cities in the US as well. But I believe the house prices got out of sight when women entered the work force in mass and created two income earning families. At that point families had buying power, i.e, more money to spend on a house and that drove the price of houses up. Supply and demand. The supply of housing stayed the same but the demand (the now greater number of people who could meet the loan criterias) went up. It drove the prices of houses up as they competed for houses. The prices of houses rose to meet what people now had available to spend. So the fact that it requires two wage earners to own a home in most big cities is greatly due to women now working when they didn't in the past. It's an odd economic fact but the price of things that don't have natural competition like the housing market will match what you have to spend.

Well, I can see the thought process, superficially it makes sense but I don't think it stacks up against the historical data. Women have been in the work force for a long time, albeit that, in the main, it has been in low paid jobs, but if you think, since at least the 1940's women have been a major part of the work force. House prices, on the other hand, have exploded over the past 10 years. Using my Mum & Dad's last house as an example, they bought the house in 1975 for £20,000. After my Dad died in 1997 my Mum sold the house for £55,000. Now, just 10 years later, there's a similar house up for sale on the same street for £200,000! I don't think that price hike really corrolates to the time frame in which women entered the workforce.

Neither does the growth corrolate with increases in family income, see report here: http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid=NEWS&articlekey=9404&cat=56-0-0

I agree, housing markets are a supply/demand driven market but I think the cause of the high prices is probably more complex than women earning money for their labour. I'll admit though I haven't been able to find any viable data on cause, seems like no one's too sure about that. Perhaps it's linked to the population growth thing? ;) (joking!)

[kasie]

This is an interesting point to bring up right now: do children already possess a natural, innate capacity for basic language or not? I believe it is the linguist Noam Chromsky who advocates the former position of this argument.



Possibly the Great Chomsky was right and we do have an innate linguistic ability, but in order to learn to talk, we do need someone with whom to talk! In the ideal child care situation, the carers would talk to children on a one-to-one basis as much as possible but I'm not sure the ideal always exists and carers are too busy to talk to their charges as much as they would like or should - and in the less than good establishments don't seem to realise it is even necessary beyond what Fifth so tellingly called 'administration'. In the now distant days when I took children aged rising five into Reception classes I could tell within a few days days which children had been talked to (and were going to be the quickest to learn to read) and which had been 'cared for' but not necessarily 'brought up' - and usually, but not always, it was the ones with more mum-time (very few house-husbands in those days) who were ahead in the acquisition of language. The role of Dad in bringing up children is a whole new can of worms! The role of siblings in language acquisition is also an interesting side issue.

[Scheherazade]

We have been talking about child's needs and importance of day-to-day parental care; all fine and nice but how about parents' needs? Should having children mean giving up what we have been working for almost all our lives (we all get educated so that one day we find a "nice" job, hopefully in a field we enjoy, and keep trying to improve ourselves professionally)? It is surely not an either-or scenario in which one is either a stay-home good parent or working parent?

How about the socialising effects of work for parents?

[The Atheist]

How about the socialising effects of work for parents?

This is an interesting follow up.

Work is becoming [has become for many] the new family. Many workers spend far more waking hours with workmates than their own families and home life starts to suffer as a result. Often, this leads to infidelity as well, which isn't usually positive for kids.

I must try to find some studies, there have been plenty done on the subject.

[Scheherazade]

Work is becoming [has become for many] the new family. Many workers spend far more waking hours with workmates than their own families and home life starts to suffer as a result. Often, this leads to infidelity as well, which isn't usually positive for kids. Are we talking about male infidelity or female infidelity here? ;) Or, to echo Shalot's earlier post in this thread, are you saying that women working is increasing infidelity? ;)

I am not sure if it is necessary to carry it that far but I personally believe that having another role and responsibility, besides being a parent, does help. If one is at home all day long and doing little other than being a parent, then one can start feeling frustrated and exhausted. Having a little "grown-up" time away from children can refresh us and help being better parents?

[AimusSage]

Are we talking about male infidelity or female infidelity here? ;) Or, to echo Shalot's earlier post in this thread, are you saying that women working is increasing infidelity?
I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to realize that the likelihood of a sexual relationship at work is bigger if there are about an equal number of men and women on a work floor. On a work space with all women or all men, the likelihood is extremely small. It just so happens there are more heterosexual people than there are homosexual people in the world, so the chance of a man and a woman hitting it off at work is the most likely form of work related infidelity.
And this likelihood increases for both men and women. :nod:



It's nothing a pan-galactic gargle blaster can't solve though :D

[motherhubbard]

Are we talking about male infidelity or female infidelity here? ;) Or, to echo Shalot's earlier post in this thread, are you saying that women working is increasing infidelity? ;)

I am not sure if it is necessary to carry it that far but I personally believe that having another role and responsibility, besides being a parent, does help. If one is at home all day long and doing little other than being a parent, then one can start feeling frustrated and exhausted. Having a little "grown-up" time away from children can refresh us and help being better parents?

It is exhausting. Being a mom or dad is a 24/7 kind of thing, but I think it‘s different for mothers and fathers. My experience as a stay home mom has been that I work from the time I get up until the time I go to bed and then I’m the one who gets up in the night. There is little time to sit and when I do sit (like now for instance) I have to redouble my efforts to compensate for the time I stole away form my responsibilities. After all, my husband has to work. When he gets home he has done his job and it’s time for him to relax and watch a little TV. I admit that in recent years this is better and he does help rally the children for supper, put them to bed, help with homework and that sort of thing. The home has been my responsibility and the work has been his. When I worked the home was still my responsibility and it was a bit overwhelming. I’m speaking from my own experience here, but I have several peers who also stay home and my experience is not unique.

John Wayne said, “Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home.”

Having said that, even as a stay home mother I have many roles. I am involved in several things that are fulfilling and bring me into contact with other adults. I didn’t become mommy and stop being anything else.

[The Atheist]

Are we talking about male infidelity or female infidelity here? ;) Or, to echo Shalot's earlier post in this thread, are you saying that women working is increasing infidelity? ;)

Funnily enough, I'd bet that more women in work has increased infidelity - more opportunity = more action. Divorce statistics have grown at much the same rate as women working, so that would tend to confirm it, too.

Statistics show women's infidelity lags behind men, but catching up.


I am not sure if it is necessary to carry it that far but I personally believe that having another role and responsibility, besides being a parent, does help. If one is at home all day long and doing little other than being a parent, then one can start feeling frustrated and exhausted. Having a little "grown-up" time away from children can refresh us and help being better parents?

No question at all! You can catch insanity from kids easier than almost anywhere else.

I wasn't meaning that people who work full time will end up having affairs, just noting that the vast majority of extra-marital affairs start with workmates. I don't see a moral issue with it and I'm not even convinced it's a bad thing, although if kids are involved it's always bad news. I lean towards thinking that if a person is unfaithful, he/she probably should have a different [or no] partner anyway.

[Virgil]

okay. women shouldn't have jobs. those damn women and their jobs, driving up the cost of housing. That's the issue right there. that cuts right to the heart of the matter.


that's just what I was thinking! I say we string up Rosie the Riviter!

:lol: I didn't say it was wrong or right, I was just explaining it.


Well, I can see the thought process, superficially it makes sense but I don't think it stacks up against the historical data. Women have been in the work force for a long time, albeit that, in the main, it has been in low paid jobs, but if you think, since at least the 1940's women have been a major part of the work force. House prices, on the other hand, have exploded over the past 10 years. Using my Mum & Dad's last house as an example, they bought the house in 1975 for £20,000. After my Dad died in 1997 my Mum sold the house for £55,000. Now, just 10 years later, there's a similar house up for sale on the same street for £200,000! I don't think that price hike really corrolates to the time frame in which women entered the workforce.

Neither does the growth corrolate with increases in family income, see report here: http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid=NEWS&articlekey=9404&cat=56-0-0

I agree, housing markets are a supply/demand driven market but I think the cause of the high prices is probably more complex than women earning money for their labour. I'll admit though I haven't been able to find any viable data on cause, seems like no one's too sure about that. Perhaps it's linked to the population growth thing? ;) (joking!)
Certainly it's not the only issue, but at least over here there are criteria for a bank providing a mortgage and that's based on family income. The higher the income the more you can spend. And when in a seller's market, the higher the buyer can spend, the higher the price is set of the house by the seller. I don't know about over there, but housing prices sky rocketed in the early 1980's, after the 1970's women entering the work force in mass.

Like I've said I'm not saying this is wrong or right. I'm not blaming women. I can understand why they may want to be in the work world. I am not saying a woman's place is in the home. Each family has to make their own choices. It's complicated. I do think on balance that the children would be best served if the mother stayed at home during the pre-school years.

[manolia]

Supply and demand. The supply of housing stayed the same but the demand (the now greater number of people who could meet the loan criterias) went up.

Yes. But the most important thing as to why houses are expensive right now is the huge (and sometimes unreasonable increase) of the costs of the various materials. Last September steel costed 0,65 euro per kg and now (note that less than a year has passed) it costs 1,2 euro per kg (i am talking about my country of course) but i am aware that prices have gone up everywhere. Now consider the fact that the same goes for concrete and everything else (regardless how you choose to build your house). So constructors charge more because they spend more ;).

I also disagree as to the supply of housing staying the same. Perhaps it is so where you live, i can't offer an opinion about that, but this rule doesn't apply here. Both demand and supply are very high here. In certain parts there are so many ready houses and engineers have a great problem selling them and there are parts of the country where houses are sold from the foundations!!!

[The Atheist]

Yes. But the most important thing as to why houses are expensive right now is the huge (and sometimes unreasonable increase) of the costs of the various materials. Last September steel costed 0,65 euro per kg and now (note that less than a year has passed) it costs 1,2 euro per kg (i am talking about my country of course) but i am aware that prices have gone up everywhere. Now consider the fact that the same goes for concrete and everything else (regardless how you choose to build your house). So constructors charge more because they spend more ;).

You're right on price increases, but that would only account for a small increase in house prices.

The main reason house prices increased so fast and so far is simply because of cheap credit, which drove up demand beyond supply. That that's true is now self-evident as it's the [sub] prime cause of the current global credit crisis and bear market/s.


I also disagree as to the supply of housing staying the same. Perhaps it is so where you live, i can't offer an opinion about that, but this rule doesn't apply here. Both demand and supply are very high here. In certain parts there are so many ready houses and engineers have a great problem selling them and there are parts of the country where houses are sold from the foundations!!!

I'd be surprised if many are selling off the plans right now. Greece's hosue property prices are under pressure, but maybe being held up better than other parts due to the price relative to the rest of Europe.

I see that prices have already declined in real terms, (http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Greece/Price-History) and look set to start falling.

[Virgil]

Yes. But the most important thing as to why houses are expensive right now is the huge (and sometimes unreasonable increase) of the costs of the various materials. Last September steel costed 0,65 euro per kg and now (note that less than a year has passed) it costs 1,2 euro per kg (i am talking about my country of course) but i am aware that prices have gone up everywhere. Now consider the fact that the same goes for concrete and everything else (regardless how you choose to build your house). So constructors charge more because they spend more ;).

But that doesn't effect existing homes. Higher lumber prices over here affected prices about five or six years ago. But these are relatively small in the overall cost of a home.


I also disagree as to the supply of housing staying the same. Perhaps it is so where you live, i can't offer an opinion about that, but this rule doesn't apply here. Both demand and supply are very high here. In certain parts there are so many ready houses and engineers have a great problem selling them and there are parts of the country where houses are sold from the foundations!!!
We have the same fluctuations. It goes in cycles. But I maintain that there was a spike in prices in the early 1980's (and I'm talking about the US here) and the main cause was the fact that there were now more two family earners than ever before and their ready capital caused a rise in home prices.

Again I'm not blaming women. Hey I was one of those households where my wife made as much money as I did. I'm proud of my wife and her earning power.

[The Atheist]

But I maintain that there was a spike in prices in the early 1980's (and I'm talking about the US here) and the main cause was the fact that there were now more two family earners than ever before and their ready capital caused a rise in home prices.

Certainly, working women had an impact, but the 1980s boom was more about baby-boomers entering their most productive and highest earning phase.

[Scheherazade]

On the issue of double standards:

Have you ever seen a baby changing unit in male toilets? I know there are in female ones but not sure about male ones (due to reasons you can guess :p).

[The Atheist]

On the issue of double standards:

Have you ever seen a baby changing unit in male toilets? I know there are in female ones but not sure about male ones (due to reasons you can guess :p).

I have seen one, but just the one. I used to just wander into the women's. Nobody ever objected when they saw the baby and more than a few stopped to chat and admire the baby.

But we do have exceptionally beautiful children, so that's understandable!

[pussnboots]

do you always have a habit of wandering into the womens bathroom?

[Scheherazade]

I used to just wander into the women's. Nobody ever objected when they saw the baby...Any excuse, eh? ;)

[The Atheist]

do you always have a habit of wandering into the womens bathroom?

Only when I have a baby which has just filled its nappies with the rear-end stuff. (is there a stink smilie?)

:D


Any excuse, eh? ;)

Actually, I have to say that you meet a far nicer type of person in the ladies' than the mens'. I never figured why they call 'em "Gents", since I'm fairly sure I've never encountered a gentleman in one yet. I haven't yet come across a female toilet half an inch deep in either urine, vomit, or both, which is the kind of thing one commonly finds in the opposite sex.

Great subject!

:lol:

[Scheherazade]

Great subject!

:lol:Can't get any better! ;)

Maybe we should start a new thread for this. Double standards in bathroom usage! :D

[Virgil]

On the issue of double standards:

Have you ever seen a baby changing unit in male toilets? I know there are in female ones but not sure about male ones (due to reasons you can guess :p).

Actually I have. They are getting quite common around here. I think the airport bathrooms have changing stations in men's bathrooms and so do highway rest stops. I'm trying to remember, it's kind of vague in my mind, but I think my gym also has them in the men's locker room.


Certainly, working women had an impact, but the 1980s boom was more about baby-boomers entering their most productive and highest earning phase.

Sure, that's true, but two salaries is way more money than whatever increase "yuppies" were making. Hey, I started work in the 1980's. Was i a "yuppie?" ;) Young-Urban-Professional. Yeah, I guess I was. :D

[Shalot]

I have a question about parents and mainly, this is for the man. Let's say you were dating some girl, and she got pregnant. You weren't planning it, you weren't even that serious, and now you got her pregnant. What do you do? Do you marry her and try to make it work? Do you relunctantly marry her after her dad has a nice long talk with you in an alley somewhere? Do you hang around and wait for a good moment to make your great escape? Or, do you say, I don't want to do this or be a part of it? Or is ita combination of all four? Should I make a poll of this and a new thread? Or are there enough guys on this forum to answer?

[Virgil]

I have a question about parents and mainly, this is for the man. Let's say you were dating some girl, and she got pregnant. You weren't planning it, you weren't even that serious, and now you got her pregnant. What do you do? Do you marry her and try to make it work? Do you relunctantly marry her after her dad has a nice long talk with you in an alley somewhere? Do you hang around and wait for a good moment to make your great escape? Or, do you say, I don't want to do this or be a part of it? Or is ita combination of all four? Should I make a poll of this and a new thread? Or are there enough guys on this forum to answer?

At a very minimum the man is responsible for supporting the child and being a father to him/her. That he cannot avoid. As to whether to marry or not that is a tough call. One assumes that since they were dating and decided to make love that there is some potential for a marriage. If they think it might work out then yes they should. But if not, I'm not sure what would be the point if in a year or two they divorced.

[blazeofglory]

The present world is something that demands of us working to meet ends.