Sainsbury's ideas nabbed by Government.

[KeiranMac]

I just went to Sainsbury's a minute ago, and noticed they had put in another one of those automatic check-ins, where you scan the goods yourself. The idea, from what I can see, isn't that the service is better or faster, but it means that four customers at once are dealt with by one assistant, instead of one assistant per person at a time. Hence, this service costs Sainsbury's a lot less money as they can lay off staff.

The Sainsbury's model, I think, is what government has been applying with it's introduction of childcare/nurseries through the 'Sure Start scheme'.

Government wants more parents to spend more time working, to increase GDP. They do not want parents (or rather 'a' parent). spending the maximum time with their children, as this would be economically inconvenient, and mean they spend less time working. Having nurseries, with god knows (I'm not a believer just like the phrase!) how many childminders per child, is the equivalent of Sainsbury's method of achieving efficiency savings. It means that parents are 'freed up' from parental responsibilities to go and be nice little earners and producers, whilst instead only one person is 'wasted' bringing up five, six, seven, eight, or maybe more, children.

What say you?

[albannach]

I just went to Sainsbury's a minute ago, and noticed they had put in another one of those automatic check-ins, where you scan the goods yourself. The idea, from what I can see, isn't that the service is better or faster, but it means that four customers at once are dealt with by one assistant, instead of one assistant per person at a time. Hence, this service costs Sainsbury's a lot less money as they can lay off staff.

The Sainsbury's model, I think, is what government has been applying with it's introduction of childcare/nurseries through the 'Sure Start scheme'.

Government wants more parents to spend more time working, to increase GDP. They do not want parents (or rather 'a' parent). spending the maximum time with their children, as this would be economically inconvenient, and mean they spend less time working. Having nurseries, with god knows (I'm not a believer just like the phrase!) how many childminders per child, is the equivalent of Sainsbury's method of achieving efficiency savings. It means that parents are 'freed up' from parental responsibilities to go and be nice little earners and producers, whilst instead only one person is 'wasted' bringing up five, six, seven, eight, or maybe more, children.

What say you?

are you a parent?

[KeiranMac]

are you a parent?

Nope. I'll try not to make any assumptions about what you're about to say next.

[albannach]

not having a dig , just curious to see if you are a parent. I agree with your statement as far as it goes , but i hardly think its the governments fault that parents are out working rather than spending the maximum time with their kids. Most modern women have worked since leaving school , so i don`t thinkthey would be happy and content with being chained to the kitchen sink as their grans were and stuck indoors with kids all day , i am sure you will agree things have moved on and woman have greater aspirations.
Most women i know work in whatever capacity( part time or full ) not because they have to but because they WANT to , to get a break and some adult chat etc.
I think a bigger problem is the teenage pregnancies scenario , young girls falling pregnant with no means of supporting a child without the state or family helping , we know we have the highest teen preg. rate in western europe and it is increasing again. This is where the government should be concentrating , in a lot of cases , as we know these girls are using the benefit system and baby as a career move.( house benefits etc)
I think they should concentrateon that as well as making childcare cheaper and more accessible. Wasn`t so long ago i was paying over £500 per month for my kids nursery , and i also think it is good for the kids development.

[Tete123]

not having a dig , just curious to see if you are a parent. I agree with your statement as far as it goes , but i hardly think its the governments fault that parents are out working rather than spending the maximum time with their kids. Most modern women have worked since leaving school , so i don`t thinkthey would be happy and content with being chained to the kitchen sink as their grans were and stuck indoors with kids all day , i am sure you will agree things have moved on and woman have greater aspirations.
Most women i know work in whatever capacity( part time or full ) not because they have to but because they WANT to , to get a break and some adult chat etc.
I think a bigger problem is the teenage pregnancies scenario , young girls falling pregnant with no means of supporting a child without the state or family helping , we know we have the highest teen preg. rate in western europe and it is increasing again. This is where the government should be concentrating , in a lot of cases , as we know these girls are using the benefit system and baby as a career move.( house benefits etc)
I think they should concentrateon that as well as making childcare cheaper and more accessible. Wasn`t so long ago i was paying over £500 per month for my kids nursery , and i also think it is good for the kids development.

I certainly agree that teenage pregnacy issues need addressing, as you say we now have the highest rate in western Europe; the problem is the only way to tackle this issue is to withdraw the support offered (housing, benefits etc) that young mothers rely on and politically this is almost constantly opposed by Socialists and Liberals. It is also very difficult to debate these social issues without accusations of denigration or stigmatization occuring towards the teens themselves which I feel it completely justified but is again oppose by Socialist and Liberals. The lack of any real debate only compounds the problems IMO.

I somewhat differ in the opinion that women merely choose to work, I mean I agree women now want a life that is different from their grandmothers, even their mothers, but surely it is fair to say that the choice is therefore between a career and children, I see little point in having kids only to then place them in childcare costing a fortune (maybe only just offset by after tax earnings) because they don't want to be chained to the kitchen sink - my argument would be that raising a child is a damn site more than merely being a 'housewife'. I can see that a child will develop by time spent with peers, but I do not think this should be at the expense of proper parental interaction. Coming back to the fact women choose to work rather than it being a necessity, again I disagree. I feel that the additional income of another full time wage is in many cases required to provide in the modern family unit, such as the cost of living in modern Britain.

Not particularly well thought out so feel free to pick this to pieces.

[albannach]

tete i pretty much agree with what you are saying , from personal experience i think there is no rule book , you can only try and achieve a happy medium.my wife and i discussed sending the kids to nursery , and rather than" papping the kids off " to nursery we thought it would be to the childrens benefit to be among other kids and getting ready for school.
if there are serious career women having kids, yes then what is the point in having them if you have no time for them, but in my experience , this is not the case.
A lot of middle class people with good jobs in this area , spending a lot of time , money and effort on their kids ( as it should be )as well as balancing their work etc in an effort to do the best for their kids , and i take my hat off to all of them.
as i said , i think the bigger problem is the other end of the scale , single parents struggling ,teenage mums in less affluent areas with crime and drugs , young kids out late at night , these are the kids who tend to struggle more in life.

[Tete123]

tete i pretty much agree with what you are saying , from personal experience i think there is no rule book , you can only try and achieve a happy medium.my wife and i discussed sending the kids to nursery , and rather than" papping the kids off " to nursery we thought it would be to the childrens benefit to be among other kids and getting ready for school.
if there are serious career women having kids, yes then what is the point in having them if you have no time for them, but in my experience , this is not the case.
A lot of middle class people with good jobs in this area , spending a lot of time , money and effort on their kids ( as it should be )as well as balancing their work etc in an effort to do the best for their kids , and i take my hat off to all of them.
as i said , i think the bigger problem is the other end of the scale , single parents struggling ,teenage mums in less affluent areas with crime and drugs , young kids out late at night , these are the kids who tend to struggle more in life.

I completely agree, the real issue is the single, usually teenage mothers (and lets not forget the irresponsible wayward fathers) who are more than any other group forming what can only be described as Britain's underclass. As I said previously, how can this be tackled when all levels of debate are stiffled by political correctness and pandering to the needs of those who rely on the state to provide every service they will ever require; by not allowing them to be admonished to some extent; I have actually had debates on this very forum whereby the argument put forth in opposition is 'it would be infringing their human rights', negating any responsibility to the actors themselves.

Personally, and it is not at all popular, would like to see our politicians take a hardline stance in regards teen pregnancies. Increase the legal age limit from the current 16 and raise it to 18 (in line with homosexual sex) and make the family responsible for the actions of their children (including financially). No more 'free' homes for those who act without consideration for the future and without responsibility - the recent Alfie Pattern case spoke volume when the young lad promised to stand by the girl and newborn but didn't understand that his limited pocket money goes nowhere. It really is a sad reflection of society when our kids are having kids and nobody has the nerve to say - STOP THIS IS WRONG!

[Opinionated]

Well, the country's going to be nothing but one huge Supermarket soon enough, what with them being the only profitable companies recruiting at the moment. Britain will make an interesting geological arial vision, wonder what Supermarket will dominate which area, Sainsbury's and Waitrose in the South East, dotted with a few *****s of course, more Asda and Morrisons the further North you go.

[Midas]

The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales has risen slightly, figures show.

The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 41.9 conceptions per 1,000 15 to 17 year olds in 2007 - up from 40.9 the year before.

It is the first increase since 2002 and means the government will almost certainly miss its target to halve rates by 2010.

The news follows a series of high-profile teenage pregnancy cases.
In total, there were estimated to be just over 42,900 conceptions in under 18s.
The under 16 conception rates also increased from 7.8 per 1,000 to 8.3, meaning there were nearly 8,200 pregnancies.

Full story at: BBC NEWS | Health | Teen pregnancies 'rise slightly'

[Tete123]

Well, the country's going to be nothing but one huge Supermarket soon enough, what with them being the only profitable companies recruiting at the moment. Britain will make an interesting geological arial vision, wonder what Supermarket will dominate which area, Sainsbury's and Waitrose in the South East, dotted with a few *****s of course, more Asda and Morrisons the further North you go.

*****'s seems to have a much greater presence in Essex than either Sainsbury's or Waitrose - within 3 miles of my home the supermarkets are:
1 Sainsbury's, 2 Asda's and 3 *****'s - in terms of the superstore version, there are also more *****'s Locals (I think that what they call them).

[KeiranMac]

I completely agree, the real issue is the single, usually teenage mothers (and lets not forget the irresponsible wayward fathers) who are more than any other group forming what can only be described as Britain's underclass. As I said previously, how can this be tackled when all levels of debate are stiffled by political correctness and pandering to the needs of those who rely on the state to provide every service they will ever require; by not allowing them to be admonished to some extent; I have actually had debates on this very forum whereby the argument put forth in opposition is 'it would be infringing their human rights', negating any responsibility to the actors themselves.

Personally, and it is not at all popular, would like to see our politicians take a hardline stance in regards teen pregnancies. Increase the legal age limit from the current 16 and raise it to 18 (in line with homosexual sex) and make the family responsible for the actions of their children (including financially). No more 'free' homes for those who act without consideration for the future and without responsibility - the recent Alfie Pattern case spoke volume when the young lad promised to stand by the girl and newborn but didn't understand that his limited pocket money goes nowhere. It really is a sad reflection of society when our kids are having kids and nobody has the nerve to say - STOP THIS IS WRONG!

We're missing the point here... again, the reaction is 'legislate!!!'... when will we realise that legislating everything isn't going to deal with the issue.

Government IS at fault here. Government have an incredible resource of scientific and other data at their hands and have long long long been aware that what's happening in the UK, and most western nations, since the decline of religion, is that there's a massive vacuum in society, where we previously had a solid belief system (not defending that system - just saying one was there), and since then that vacuum has been filled by greedy materialistic lusting and want.

At the same time as the decline of religion, we had the rise of feminism. But instead of feminism meaning that women's roles were properly awarded, and increasingly valued, they were devalued. The reality of feminism ended up being that we all said 'oh, women would be much better off working, they'd like that, that's the best thing for them, to be like us men!!!'.....

Let me get this straight, I'm not a chauvanist. I would be just as happy if men were at home looking after their children. But instead, men aren't, nor are women, they're both out working and expect children to rear themselves by some miracle.

Of course, this is economically convenient and useful. The Government knows this, and has allowed it to spiral to it's current state. Precisely because economically having two parents working works for the government financially, and increases GDP.

It's the government's role to raise up important issues on the agenda. They don't need to legislate here, they just need to bloody start telling people that this is a problem and we'd be better with some people rearing their children until they were at least three or four.

Teenage pregnancies are just a bi-product of the sick society we are left with, because without a belief system nobody knows right from wrong and parent's aren't teaching it to their childen. Nor is the government. Nor are the educational authorities. Children probably learn more from Television, marketing machines, and their peers - who are similarly lost like they are.

[albannach]

We're missing the point here... again, the reaction is 'legislate!!!'... when will we realise that legislating everything isn't going to deal with the issue.

Government IS at fault here. Government have an incredible resource of scientific and other data at their hands and have long long long been aware that what's happening in the UK, and most western nations, since the decline of religion, is that there's a massive vacuum in society, where we previously had a solid belief system (not defending that system - just saying one was there), and since then that vacuum has been filled by greedy materialistic lusting and want.

At the same time as the decline of religion, we had the rise of feminism. But instead of feminism meaning that women's roles were properly awarded, and increasingly valued, they were devalued. The reality of feminism ended up being that we all said 'oh, women would be much better off working, they'd like that, that's the best thing for them, to be like us men!!!'.....

Let me get this straight, I'm not a chauvanist. I would be just as happy if men were at home looking after their children. But instead, men aren't, nor are women, they're both out working and expect children to rear themselves by some miracle.

Of course, this is economically convenient and useful. The Government knows this, and has allowed it to spiral to it's current state. Precisely because economically having two parents working works for the government financially, and increases GDP.

It's the government's role to raise up important issues on the agenda. They don't need to legislate here, they just need to bloody start telling people that this is a problem and we'd be better with some people rearing their children until they were at least three or four.

Teenage pregnancies are just a bi-product of the sick society we are left with, because without a belief system nobody knows right from wrong and parent's aren't teaching it to their childen. Nor is the government. Nor are the educational authorities. Children probably learn more from Television, marketing machines, and their peers - who are similarly lost like they are.

I think this is a pile of utter ******** to put it politely, hence why i asked if you have kids of your own.your argument is basically that no religion = no right from wrong and its the gov. fault parents aren`t at home rearing their kids , instead they send them to nursery so they can work to the benefit of the country.As has been previously said , you should bang the drum about teenage pregnancies , not about liberated modern woman getting a break from their kids by sending them to nursery , this isn`t the cause of the break down of society.When you have a wife and kids of your own you might see things differently i pretty much think.No the gov. is not at fault , it is down to the parents upbringing how a child turns out and i hardly think sending them to nursery is a problem.More nurseries , and make them more affordable.

[KeiranMac]

I think this is a pile of utter ******** to put it politely, hence why i asked if you have kids of your own.your argument is basically that no religion = no right from wrong and its the gov. fault parents aren`t at home rearing their kids , instead they send them to nursery so they can work to the benefit of the country.As has been previously said , you should bang the drum about teenage pregnancies , not about liberated modern woman getting a break from their kids by sending them to nursery , this isn`t the cause of the break down of society.When you have a wife and kids of your own you might see things differently i pretty much think.No the gov. is not at fault , it is down to the parents upbringing how a child turns out and i hardly think sending them to nursery is a problem.More nurseries , and make them more affordable.

A pile of utter ******** is it? It doesn't surprise me that you will say this kind of thing. Let me guess, you have children, you work, so does your wife? correct? or at least both of these applied at some point in the past (i.e. your children could be grown now)

If not, then you have no more knowledge of the value and experience involved in upringing than I, except I've taken the time to study this topic in detail. If you do, then you have a VESTED interest in attacking my comment, as you seek to defend your way of being. It is simple stuff really, of course everyone wants to defend what they are, the way they are, and take every action to convince themselves that they are in the right. That 'they know best'.

So, do you think you are happier for being at work? and that your wife is too? that you would both be better to be at work rather than rearing your children? Then ask yourself why you think that way. Ask yourself if you might get more value out of something more intrinsic like rearing a child, something innate, something proven time and time and time again scientifically to drastically improve wellbeing.

Making money is a necessity to fulfil basic material needs. So of course, someone has to work. But since when did we allow our society to grow into one where BOTH parents have to work? We need to take action to reverse that trend and the government is the only body in a position to help us. We're brainwashed every day day in day out that we need things we do not, which are in fact materialistic wants which may improve our sense of worth momentarily before we find another want and desperately seek to satisfy it.

Sending children to nursery IS a problem. Given, it is the lesser of two evils, but it is an evil nonetheless. What kind of attention to a child do you think a nursery can give compared to a parent? the two are incomparable. At the moment, unlike the only nations where nurseries are anything like they should be, the UK's nurseries are staffed by far too few people proportionately to the number of children, and the turnover of staff is far too high.

What do you think goes through a two year old's head when the carer at the nursery ditches him/her regularly to care for one of the other ten children they're looking after? what do you think when the carer that's cared for them for six months disappears without trace when they get another job? do you think that's good for a child's emotional state? to be left by one of the first people to show a link to them? to be handed over by their parents so they can 'carry on doing more important things' in the day?

You sir, whether you are a parent or not, obviously know very little about child psychology. And you if you are a parent, you ought to go and do a bit more research.

[albannach]

keiran i completely disagree with you , you may have studied child psychology but i think practice is more important than notes from a book. Its not about the money in my situation , my little girl has just turned 4 and she is ready for school , so we feel nursery is good for her. Its about providing a balance for the family , trying to achieve what is best for all. I find it hard to take you serious when you are not a parent , having children is the most rewarding thing on earth but also very hard , and sometimes you need a break , which is why nursery can be good for both parent and child. I personally don`t think you have much chance of convincing any parents where you are coming from , do you think if we thought nursey was for one moment harming our kids we would be sending them? Sorry if i seem harsh to you but this all sounds like the latest social worker bullshit and parents are fed up being told how to bring up their kids. If my children do not turn out well , that will be our responsibility and not the gov. I agree the serious career woman who never sees their children at nursery may be causing problems but i think the bigger problems are with kids in poorer backgrounds , single mothers who dont send kids to nursery and are with them all day in the background smoking heroin or drinking , claiming all sorts of benefits and the kids growing up thinking they dont have to work thus the cycle continues. the govshould be concentrating their resources there , so i completely disagree with you.

[albannach]

let me just say as well i originally sent my kids to nursery to give my wife a break , my oldest ( 5 ) is autistic and the stress this put us under especially my wife with no help or support as we have no family near us , nursery was invaluable to my wife to give her a bit of respite.You paint a very robotic picture of these millions of mother dumping kids at nursery cause they cannot be bothered with them ,i feel this is rarely the case. I think you need to check out the psychology of the modern woman as well as kids cause they are both strongly linked.

[KeiranMac]

keiran i completely disagree with you , you may have studied child psychology but i think practice is more important than notes from a book. Its not about the money in my situation , my little girl has just turned 4 and she is ready for school , so we feel nursery is good for her. Its about providing a balance for the family , trying to achieve what is best for all. I find it hard to take you serious when you are not a parent , having children is the most rewarding thing on earth but also very hard , and sometimes you need a break , which is why nursery can be good for both parent and child. I personally don`t think you have much chance of convincing any parents where you are coming from , do you think if we thought nursey was for one moment harming our kids we would be sending them? Sorry if i seem harsh to you but this all sounds like the latest social worker bullshit and parents are fed up being told how to bring up their kids. If my children do not turn out well , that will be our responsibility and not the gov. I agree the serious career woman who never sees their children at nursery may be causing problems but i think the bigger problems are with kids in poorer backgrounds , single mothers who dont send kids to nursery and are with them all day in the background smoking heroin or drinking , claiming all sorts of benefits and the kids growing up thinking they dont have to work thus the cycle continues. the govshould be concentrating their resources there , so i completely disagree with you.

Thank you, that was a more reasoned and fair response, I shall attempt one also!

Firstly; granted I don't have a child, and I fully understand why you would not respect my comments in the same way as I'm not a parent. But, and I hope you too will understand where I'm coming from here, I MUST put forward this argument as it's not being heard enough, and whilst I respect your view, I have one too and whether I have a child or not I'm going to keep putting it forward.

My point is simple; parents don't worry about their children enough, in general. Of course there are those that buck the trend. But even if there are 10,000 families that buck the trend and care more for their children, there are a 100,000 that don't these days. This means that even if we do well for our children they have to grow up in a society that is fundamentally perverse and sick and getting worse.

One of the problems with our society is that, and I go back to my earlier point, without religion nobody is taught right from wrong. Especially not if they don't spend much time with their parents in their formative years.

I think bringing up a child is an incredibly important thing. Don't you? in which case, surely you would want to know as much about the subject to make sure you know where to avoid the problems?

Of course reading notes from a book is not a replacement for bringing up a child, but how do you make sure you don't make a mistake? or do something which disturbs or upsets your child, not for their wellbeing? do you expect that to be innate? There's so much knowledge from history about how to bring up healthy children that it's worth reading about it - child psychology has come on leaps and bounds in the last twenty years, there's books that are incredibly worthwhile on this topic and will fundamentally reshape your views on life and child-rearing. I'm not saying you're arrogant, but if someone were to assume that they know best for children would have a touch of arrogance to that view.

Child rearing should be a significant part of the national curriculum. How can it not be? It's so vitally important and has gone so horribly wrong, but yet the Government does nothing about it.

Most importantly, you say your child is four? that's fantastic. the first three years are the most important. If you've made it to four, your child is much closer to being ready to go to a nursery. Read this. it'll interest you;

Children can be damaged by nursery stress - Telegraph

I would lastly ask you a few questions though, out of genuine interest, not out of trying to achieve successful argument.

Why do you think your child will be better off at nursery? and why do you think it will be better for you?

The reason I ask, and I'd really be genuinely interest to know, is that my worries are that people are brainwashed by those around them and by marketing and society into thinking that being in work, not bringing up children, is the better thing to do. This is a fundamental issue that's arisen over the years. Why is it better to earn? why is it better to get back to work quickly? lots of questions... the answers are complicated. I'm surprised money isn't involved at all? It normally is, as people find it hard to compare their lifestyles to those around them, as most people do work these days - people then end up trying to 'keep up with the jones'... so they ditch bringing up their children as they try to convince themsemselves it's better for them and the child, when in fact it's just about money and satisfying want, and conforming to the norm where you have more money and where both parents work. Because of course, the idea now is that it's a good thing for both parents to be in work but WHY?!?!

Does anyone ever tell you and your wife that it's a wonderful thing that you are rearing your children and one of you isn't at work? Who does these days? nobody seems to. There's nothing in society to support that way of being anymore.

[albannach]

i will get back to you in more detail , basically i think kids need lots of love and QUALITY time spent with them which is better then ALL your time spent with them.

[KeiranMac]

Here's an excerpt from that article worth noting;

"Last year, Professor Lamb co-authored a study assessing nearly 3,000 toddlers which found that the stress hormone cortisol doubled in youngsters during the first nine months of nursery compared with those who remained at home."

Oh and another interesting article;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-too-soon.html

"But the study also says the fact that two-thirds of women in developed countries now work is a "cause for concern", as it reflects the fact that most families need two incomes to make ends meet.

In addition, it quotes scientific research that has found a lack of contact with parents can lead to children becoming depressed and withdrawn, perform less well at school and develop behavioural problems."


As I was saying, there's a lot of good research on this topic, but of course, the government won't saying about this as it's not any help to them. They want to increase spending on nurseries, and increase the number of children in nurseries, so any research that indicates this isn't good for children will be ignored by the Government as best they can.