Thursday, February 15, 2007

Suffer the children?

The article referenced below shows a clear indication that Americans live to work while other countries work to live. I believe if more families were being raised by one parent being able to stay at home (or work from home) we'd see these statistics skew quite a bit in the more positive direction.

On Wednesday February 14th Unicef published a report comparing the well-being of young people in 21 rich countries, and concluded that British and American youths endure the worst quality of life of any.

In fact, as the authors of the UN report admit, such broad conclusions need to be kept in some perspective. Many of the data presented are hardly new or surprising: who did not already know that rates of teenage pregnancy are high in Britain, or that junk-food-guzzling kids are getting dangerously fat in America? Accurate comparisons of social and educational trends, between countries, are also notoriously tricky to make. Perhaps most important, the report could cast more light (though it does give some) on how child welfare is changing over time. Rates of infant mortality, child deaths caused by accidents or other scores of health and safety, for example, show that children in all these rich countries in fact enjoy an historically unparalleled quality of life.

Where Britain and America really score badly, however, is in the categories of relationships and risky behaviour. British and American children apparently spend less time (and eat fewer meals) with their parents, compared with the other countries, and seem to be somewhat less happy with their friends and in school.
Complete article found at The Economist

I'm especially interested in just what people are thinking? Why would you choose to bring children into a world to be raised by hired help? Certainly I understand there are many parents who don't have the choice but to work outside the home, but those who are 'career' driven and make the conscious decision to have children and rush back to work - WHY?