I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.
I don't think society has collectively lost interest in sex, I think it has less than it did in the past.
Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.
All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
So learn something new. Anything.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.
I can recommend knitting. Compatible with watching TV or listening to the radio/music or just chatting too.
tincanknits is a great place for a beginner to start. Or your local yarn store.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Beautifully written, but surely somewhat dated now?
It's a history of science. The invention of the wheel and Newton's discoveries haven't changed much in fifty years. I guess you might revise a couple of the later episodes and add a couple to accommodate recent discoveries but the rest holds up fine. What you get with Ascent of Man, which you are much less likely to get today, is a serious imparting of knowledge to viewers who are expected to be intelligent and curious but not to be knowledgeable on the topics, all delivered with a strong moral purpose.
He wrote a great book I loved when I was about 16: The Common Sense of Science.
And Modest Mouse did a great song about him: youtube.com/watch?v=jdzpWfliYM0&themeRefresh=1
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
Do they really have such traditional values or is that largely a projection of our own prejudices?
Well, the Islamic Government certainly has more traditional values.
If they cannot impart those on the citizens, then they are either completely incompetent... or it turns out that governments have limited ability to impart values on citizens.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.
I don't think society has collectively lost interest in sex, I think it has less than it did in the past.
Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.
All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.
That's a lot of goalposts being moved Barty!
If people were content to have less sex - because they were happy watching YouTube in a way that previous generations were not happy reading Dickens - then you'd expect a lower rate of infidelity and a lower rate of relationship breakdown as a result.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
glenn pray tell the rest of the class what makes you such an expert in propaganda
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.
I don't think society has collectively lost interest in sex, I think it has less than it did in the past.
Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.
All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.
That's a lot of goalposts being moved Barty!
If people were content to have less sex - because they were happy watching YouTube in a way that previous generations were not happy reading Dickens - then you'd expect a lower rate of infidelity and a lower rate of relationship breakdown as a result.
Not necessarily.
Especially in an age of consent, if one partner is happy watching YouTube and the other is not, then infidelity might be more likely.
Or if people were more interested in YouTube than Dickens.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
Not much domestic waste goes to landfill these days. Most gets burnt in Energy from Waste plants (aka Incinerators).
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
Could you not just claim the same credits for putting it straight to landfill? It is still carbon capture.
No, it decomposes and releases methane, which has a greater global warming potential than CO2.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I dont think so. If it were biological then infertility clinics would be busier than they are, and far busier than abortion clinics.
I think it mostly down to societal change. Both men and women value "me time" and consumerist lifestyles with interesting careers, travel etc etc. There is much less desire to parner up than historically.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
I did my BA in Arabic at SOAS from ages 54-57 and I had some advantages over the younger undergrads - I was better organised than most of them and more committed than some of them. But I was the oldest student there by 30 years so I couldn't match them for energy and working in groups was occasionally a challenge.
The smaller age difference didn't seem to matter so much when I did my Russian degree at MSU when I was 41.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(
I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.
One place I used to work at people would create meetings with themselves to block out time in their calendar for actually getting work done. Of course this made scheduling meetings more difficult if people chose different times, so a policy was introduced about people being available for meetings in what was known as "core working hours"...
Or "core can't get any work done hours", as they end up becoming, thanks to the meetings.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.
I don't think society has collectively lost interest in sex, I think it has less than it did in the past.
Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.
All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.
That's a lot of goalposts being moved Barty!
If people were content to have less sex - because they were happy watching YouTube in a way that previous generations were not happy reading Dickens - then you'd expect a lower rate of infidelity and a lower rate of relationship breakdown as a result.
I think that there is pretty clear evidence from surveys that fewer relationships are being formed and less sex happening.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.
That's the role of the Common Entrance examination to the English (historically) Public [sic] Schools, surely.
Amongst the oiks it’s setting up a VPN to access Pornhub. The Etonians get their valet to do it.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.
That's the role of the Common Entrance examination to the English (historically) Public [sic] Schools, surely.
Amongst the oiks it’s setting up a VPN to access Pornhub. The Etonians get their valet to do it.
They don't need porn as they are being yanked off by their valets?
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.
That's the role of the Common Entrance examination to the English (historically) Public [sic] Schools, surely.
Amongst the oiks it’s setting up a VPN to access Pornhub. The Etonians get their valet to do it.
They don't need porn as they are being yanked off by their valets?
I believe the traditional expression is 'fag', rather than valet. In between making toast bare-handed without a toasting fork, obvs.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
As someone near to the Somerset levels, it was never dredging rivers that was the issue, it was about dredging the drainage channels that were designed to keep the levels dry, in the face of some who wanted to return the land to swamp. I don’t think that’s inane.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
I did my BA in Arabic at SOAS from ages 54-57 and I had some advantages over the younger undergrads - I was better organised than most of them and more committed than some of them. But I was the oldest student there by 30 years so I couldn't match them for energy and working in groups was occasionally a challenge.
The smaller age difference didn't seem to matter so much when I did my Russian degree at MSU when I was 41.
I returned to education in my 40s when I did my PPE degree with the OU. Hard work, especially fitting it around a full time job, but enjoyable, fulfilling, and it got me using my brain in a different way.
And because I wasn't studying for the purpose of embarking on a career at the end of it, I did not have that sort of pressure to do well.
If it hadn't been for the fees shooting up, I'd have carried on and done an MA.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, in 60% of the time, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
I did my BA in Arabic at SOAS from ages 54-57 and I had some advantages over the younger undergrads - I was better organised than most of them and more committed than some of them. But I was the oldest student there by 30 years so I couldn't match them for energy and working in groups was occasionally a challenge.
The smaller age difference didn't seem to matter so much when I did my Russian degree at MSU when I was 41.
SOAS appeals. It seems famously woke, so I might well like it there, and they do a very interesting course inAfrican Studies, with quite a lot of modular flexibility.
I agree that life experience plays 2 ways, and the youngsters can be more energetic and better at group work, so swings and roundabouts.
What sort of complete and utter idiot yells "More" at the end of Handel's Messiah?
That should be an instant ban from attending any further performances. No better than a football hooligan.
Those that insist on clapping immediately rather than letting it settle for a few seconds at least are also on shaky ground.
Still, assuming you were listening to R3 as I was, the performance was not the worst. Every time I hear it I wonder how Handel managed to get so many bangers into one piece.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
I returned to education in my 40s when I did my PPE degree with the OU. Hard work, especially fitting it around a full time job, but enjoyable, fulfilling, and it got me using my brain in a different way.
And because I wasn't studying for the purpose of embarking on a career at the end of it, I did not have that sort of pressure to do well.
If it hadn't been for the fees shooting up, I'd have carried on and done an MA.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
I don't think the world is going to **** any more or less today than it was at any other point in time.
Those **** are ambiguous: not going to shit any more or less, or not going to fuck any more or less?
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
I don't think the world is going to **** any more or less today than it was at any other point in time.
Those **** are ambiguous: not going to shit any more or less, or not going to fuck any more or less?
I'd have thought the bigger issue is that expecting the rate of shitting or fucking or other ****ing to stay exactly constant through history is a little bizarre.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I'd genuinely find it impossible to work with someone like you. Pure presenteeism. No appetite to innovate. No understanding of what productivity is at all.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I'd genuinely find it impossible to work with someone like you. Pure presenteeism. No appetite to innovate. No understanding of what productivity is at all.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
Whoosh.
Good to see the point is going right over your head. 🤦♂️
The point is not presenteeism, the point is raising standards.
Full time wages should be for full time work. Which does not mean presenting for work, but not actually working.
The person who is presenting but not working should be fired. The part timer should get part time wages. Full timers, should be doing actual full time work, not just presenting in those hours.
If you're suggesting that 100% of the work can be done in 60% of the hours then standards are so low that we should be able to cut the headcount by about 40% and pay for 60% of the FTE jobs.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.
I don't think society has collectively lost interest in sex, I think it has less than it did in the past.
Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.
All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.
That's a lot of goalposts being moved Barty!
If people were content to have less sex - because they were happy watching YouTube in a way that previous generations were not happy reading Dickens - then you'd expect a lower rate of infidelity and a lower rate of relationship breakdown as a result.
I think that there is pretty clear evidence from surveys that fewer relationships are being formed and less sex happening.
1961: The contraceptive pill was introduced in the UK and became available on the NHS (married women only)
1967: National Health Service (Family Planning) Act in 1967. It becomes available to unmarried women.
1974: Family planning services, including the pill, fully integrated into the NHS and free of charge to all women regardless of age or marital status.
The increase post-2001 is due to inward Eastern Europe migration, who were younger and more catholic and more likely to have babies. The decrease after 2010 on is...what? Austerity? Brexit? Boomers too old to have sex?
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I'd genuinely find it impossible to work with someone like you. Pure presenteeism. No appetite to innovate. No understanding of what productivity is at all.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
Whoosh.
Good to see the point is going right over your head. 🤦♂️
The point is not presenteeism, the point is raising standards.
Full time wages should be for full time work. Which does not mean presenting for work, but not actually working.
The person who is presenting but not working should be fired. The part timer should get part time wages. Full timers, should be doing actual full time work, not just presenting in those hours.
If you're suggesting that 100% of the work can be done in 60% of the hours then standards are so low that we should be able to cut the headcount by about 40% and pay for 60% of the FTE jobs.
With that attitude we'd all still be working six days a week.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I'd genuinely find it impossible to work with someone like you. Pure presenteeism. No appetite to innovate. No understanding of what productivity is at all.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
Whoosh.
Good to see the point is going right over your head. 🤦♂️
The point is not presenteeism, the point is raising standards.
Full time wages should be for full time work. Which does not mean presenting for work, but not actually working.
The person who is presenting but not working should be fired. The part timer should get part time wages. Full timers, should be doing actual full time work, not just presenting in those hours.
If you're suggesting that 100% of the work can be done in 60% of the hours then standards are so low that we should be able to cut the headcount by about 40% and pay for 60% of the FTE jobs.
You need people lazy enough to sit around and wonder why they are doing X when doing Y would take half the time.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I'd genuinely find it impossible to work with someone like you. Pure presenteeism. No appetite to innovate. No understanding of what productivity is at all.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
Whoosh.
Good to see the point is going right over your head. 🤦♂️
The point is not presenteeism, the point is raising standards.
Full time wages should be for full time work. Which does not mean presenting for work, but not actually working.
The person who is presenting but not working should be fired. The part timer should get part time wages. Full timers, should be doing actual full time work, not just presenting in those hours.
If you're suggesting that 100% of the work can be done in 60% of the hours then standards are so low that we should be able to cut the headcount by about 40% and pay for 60% of the FTE jobs.
You realise you've posted this on PB, right? Merry Christmas I guess.
The Greens are everything the young (particularly girls) wanted Labour to be. It's what the radio 4 prog was about. Streeting knows what he's doing. You can't be a lefti leaning Party and be an idealogical vacuum at the same time. Starmer doesn't seem to get it
A party as left wing as the Greens cannot win a national election in a democracy. That is what any Labour leader will understand. Support for the Green Party falls away sharply, with voters aged over 30.
Holding the balance of power would be good though. That’s the goal.
I’d not write us off. People don’t really vote against us.
The Greens are everything the young (particularly girls) wanted Labour to be. It's what the radio 4 prog was about. Streeting knows what he's doing. You can't be a lefti leaning Party and be an idealogical vacuum at the same time. Starmer doesn't seem to get it
A party as left wing as the Greens cannot win a national election in a democracy. That is what any Labour leader will understand. Support for the Green Party falls away sharply, with voters aged over 30.
Holding the balance of power would be good though. That’s the goal.
I’d not write us off. People don’t really vote against us.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(
I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.
One place I used to work at people would create meetings with themselves to block out time in their calendar for actually getting work done. Of course this made scheduling meetings more difficult if people chose different times, so a policy was introduced about people being available for meetings in what was known as "core working hours"...
What sort of complete and utter idiot yells "More" at the end of Handel's Messiah?
That should be an instant ban from attending any further performances. No better than a football hooligan.
Those that insist on clapping immediately rather than letting it settle for a few seconds at least are also on shaky ground.
Still, assuming you were listening to R3 as I was, the performance was not the worst. Every time I hear it I wonder how Handel managed to get so many bangers into one piece.
[That's me banned too]
I approve both sentiments (and have thought much the same about the absolute bangers myself).
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
I have no qualms with part timers.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
Isn't that what I just said?
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
Nope. You can scroll up and see what you said. Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though. = precisely the attitude we need to drive out.
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
Yes, what I said was right. People who are working 3 days can be paid for 3 days.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
I'd genuinely find it impossible to work with someone like you. Pure presenteeism. No appetite to innovate. No understanding of what productivity is at all.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
Whoosh.
Good to see the point is going right over your head. 🤦♂️
The point is not presenteeism, the point is raising standards.
Full time wages should be for full time work. Which does not mean presenting for work, but not actually working.
The person who is presenting but not working should be fired. The part timer should get part time wages. Full timers, should be doing actual full time work, not just presenting in those hours.
If you're suggesting that 100% of the work can be done in 60% of the hours then standards are so low that we should be able to cut the headcount by about 40% and pay for 60% of the FTE jobs.
You need people lazy enough to sit around and wonder why they are doing X when doing Y would take half the time.
The 100% presenteeists aren't those people.
The other thing to remember is that the South Cambridgeshire project was partly about giving them a recruitment tool in an area where getting people to work for the council was otherwise insanely difficult.
Also, that part of the plan is to take out the least valuable work from the job as previously defined. I'd put Whitehall micromanaging process stuff like that into that category.
What sort of complete and utter idiot yells "More" at the end of Handel's Messiah?
That should be an instant ban from attending any further performances. No better than a football hooligan.
Those that insist on clapping immediately rather than letting it settle for a few seconds at least are also on shaky ground.
Still, assuming you were listening to R3 as I was, the performance was not the worst. Every time I hear it I wonder how Handel managed to get so many bangers into one piece.
[That's me banned too]
I approve both sentiments (and have thought much the same about the absolute bangers myself).
I was lucky enough to be at a Proms performance of Gotterdammerung with Barenboim conducting.
As the world ended and the final notes echoed round the Albert Hall he held his baton up for a good number of seconds. Absolutely everyone was paying attention and nobody in the 5000+ audience made a single sound until he lowered it.
More concerts should end like that.
I don't know why it worked that time. It was a monumental performance, yes, but perhaps also the proportion of musicians in the audience was very high? No idea. But it made a big impression.
Comments
Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.
All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.
And Modest Mouse did a great song about him: youtube.com/watch?v=jdzpWfliYM0&themeRefresh=1
It seriously predates Netflix.
If they cannot impart those on the citizens, then they are either completely incompetent... or it turns out that governments have limited ability to impart values on citizens.
If people were content to have less sex - because they were happy watching YouTube in a way that previous generations were not happy reading Dickens - then you'd expect a lower rate of infidelity and a lower rate of relationship breakdown as a result.
Especially in an age of consent, if one partner is happy watching YouTube and the other is not, then infidelity might be more likely.
Or if people were more interested in YouTube than Dickens.
I think it mostly down to societal change. Both men and women value "me time" and consumerist lifestyles with interesting careers, travel etc etc. There is much less desire to parner up than historically.
The smaller age difference didn't seem to matter so much when I did my Russian degree at MSU when I was 41.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-PyWfVkjZc
Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.
If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.
Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.
And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/sex-is-dying-out-this-is-why-it-matters/#:~:text=The National Survey of Sexual,fallen from five to three.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5y9d7xl8dvo
I'm only half kidding. A slightly mental farmer I know suggested the best way to keep this crap out of your system is to "follow the pigs".
If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.
And because I wasn't studying for the purpose of embarking on a career at the end of it, I did not have that sort of pressure to do well.
If it hadn't been for the fees shooting up, I'd have carried on and done an MA.
Pay the person doing 60% of the job, in 60% of the time, 60% of the salary.
Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.
Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.
I agree that life experience plays 2 ways, and the youngsters can be more energetic and better at group work, so swings and roundabouts.
Those that insist on clapping immediately rather than letting it settle for a few seconds at least are also on shaky ground.
Still, assuming you were listening to R3 as I was, the performance was not the worst. Every time I hear it I wonder how Handel managed to get so many bangers into one piece.
[That's me banned too]
If my staff can get the stuff done required by their role in 3 hours then that's brilliant. I then have a real headache because this particular individual is vastly underutilised (and underpaid) - but that's a good problem to have compared to the alternative.
We need to drive up standards and productivity and raise the bar as to what is expected for full time work, not lower the bar so low that we tolerate people who are idle or pay part timers a full time salary.
It is only in infertility clinics that its an issue.
Good to see it in the wild though, I kinda thought it was a myth.
Good to see the point is going right over your head. 🤦♂️
The point is not presenteeism, the point is raising standards.
Full time wages should be for full time work. Which does not mean presenting for work, but not actually working.
The person who is presenting but not working should be fired. The part timer should get part time wages. Full timers, should be doing actual full time work, not just presenting in those hours.
If you're suggesting that 100% of the work can be done in 60% of the hours then standards are so low that we should be able to cut the headcount by about 40% and pay for 60% of the FTE jobs.
- 1961: The contraceptive pill was introduced in the UK and became available on the NHS (married women only)
- 1967: National Health Service (Family Planning) Act in 1967. It becomes available to unmarried women.
- 1974: Family planning services, including the pill, fully integrated into the NHS and free of charge to all women regardless of age or marital status.
The increase post-2001 is due to inward Eastern Europe migration, who were younger and more catholic and more likely to have babies. The decrease after 2010 on is...what? Austerity? Brexit? Boomers too old to have sex?The 60 minutes episode that Trump tried to censor has leaked online.
I am shocked and appalled by this...
The 100% presenteeists aren't those people.
I’d not write us off. People don’t really vote against us.
There are jobs that are costing us over £1000 a day to agency fill. A 4dw could save us hundreds of thousands a year.
Also, that part of the plan is to take out the least valuable work from the job as previously defined. I'd put Whitehall micromanaging process stuff like that into that category.
As the world ended and the final notes echoed round the Albert Hall he held his baton up for a good number of seconds. Absolutely everyone was paying attention and nobody in the 5000+ audience made a single sound until he lowered it.
More concerts should end like that.
I don't know why it worked that time. It was a monumental performance, yes, but perhaps also the proportion of musicians in the audience was very high? No idea. But it made a big impression.