Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[seer]

I don't believe I said otherwise. So, why don't you put forward your practical, and doable, solution to keeping fathers with their families.

I don't know Carp, how come there was much, much less single parenthood 50 years ago? What has changed?

"Appropriate funding" is not "throw money at it," and it was only one of four specific suggestions - not the only one. The fact is that local funding creates an unlevel playing field, and most of the "failing schools" are in these impoverished areas. It seems obvious to me that school funding should not be a function of the wealth of the local community. That is a formula for ensuring poor community will continue to be poor, and rich ones will continue to be rich.

The reason why the tax base has been reduced in these cities was because of white flight, and that was the direct result of leftists policies that made cities unlivable. And now you want others to pay for those bad policies. Vouchers are the answer.

As for devaluing teachers - I don't believe I at any point said that YOU devalue teachers - but teachers have been attacked locally and nationally for a few years now. Personally, I think it does harm to any group when the entire group is painted by the characteristics of the comparatively few bad apples.

We do need to dissolve teachers unions, they have little to with student progress, and more to do with better pay and benefits for teachers.

We have monopolies in local, state, and federal governments. I think a single-payer monopoly would do a great deal to solve the healthcare problems in this country. We have local and state and federal monopolies for our road systems. I don't see our schools as any different. It's a service provided by the government using our tax dollars. And it's not a monopoly, Seer, when there is competition. There are charter schools and private schools in every city I have ever visited - and homeschooling is widespread. So your "monopoly" is a bit of a fiction.

Good then we should give these poor families vouchers to escape these leftist schools.

[carpedm9587]

I don't know Carp, how come there was much, much less single parenthood 50 years ago?

YOu know - you have a tendency to answer questions with other questions. Why don't we just go back to the original question: what is your practical suggestion for how we keep males with families?

What has changed?

I fifty years? It would be easier to answer what hasn't changed. Politics have changed. Technology has changed. Religions and religious views have changed. Countries have shifted boundaries. Leadership has changed. Media has changed. The Internet. Cellular phones. Smartphones. The ways people invest. The gap between rich and poor. I could go on and on and on. I'm not sure what value it would have.

The reason why the tax base has been reduced in these cities was because of white flight, and that was the direct result of leftists policies that made cities unlivable. And now you want others to pay for those bad policies. Vouchers are the answer.

You really do love to make sweeping generalizations, don't you. Seer, there has ALWAYS been inequality in funding of schools because schools have always (AFAIK) been funded by local resources. So poor communities have always had worse schools than rich communities. Since there is more poverty among minorities, it is a dynamic that has historically impacted minorities more. The boundaries may have shifted over the years - but the problem is locally funding schools, not "white flight." Leveling educational funding for all schools and providing the right resources is the answer - not removing even more funding from struggling schools. What you are proposing is to introduce a system which will, again, mostly impact impoverished schools. The successful schools, largely in wealthy areas, are not screaming for vouchers because the schools are doing just fine. You solution worsens the problem - it doesn't improve it.

We do need to dissolve teachers unions, they have little to with student progress, and more to do with better pay and benefits for teachers.

As with most things - a government forcing groups to take on one dimension or another is just more government power and government intervention. What we need to do is make union membership voluntary and eliminate mandatory union dues and membership. Then the unions will have to actually serve their population in order to be attractive. Workers should have the right to gather and bargain collectively - they just shouldn't be required to do so.

Good then we should give these poor families vouchers to escape these leftist schools.

No - for the various reasons I've already cited. Your solution makes things worse.

[seer]

YOu know - you have a tendency to answer questions with other questions. Why don't we just go back to the original question: what is your practical suggestion for how we keep males with families?

I fifty years? It would be easier to answer what hasn't changed. Politics have changed. Technology has changed. Religions and religious views have changed. Countries have shifted boundaries. Leadership has changed. Media has changed. The Internet. Cellular phones. Smartphones. The ways people invest. The gap between rich and poor. I could go on and on and on. I'm not sure what value it would have.

These are moral questions at bottom, technology is mostly neutral when it come to these. It was the sexual revolution, feminism ("women need men like fish need bicycles") no fault divorce, increasing selfishness, the devaluing of traditional marriage, etc....

You really do love to make sweeping generalizations, don't you. Seer, there has ALWAYS been inequality in funding of schools because schools have always (AFAIK) been funded by local resources. So poor communities have always had worse schools than rich communities. Since there is more poverty among minorities, it is a dynamic that has historically impacted minorities more. The boundaries may have shifted over the years - but the problem is locally funding schools, not "white flight." Leveling educational funding for all schools and providing the right resources is the answer - not removing even more funding from struggling schools. What you are proposing is to introduce a system which will, again, mostly impact impoverished schools. The successful schools, largely in wealthy areas, are not screaming for vouchers because the schools are doing just fine. You solution worsens the problem - it doesn't improve it.

Except before white flight you have a much better tax base in these locals. You can't deny it, it was a real thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_...th_urban_decay

As with most things - a government forcing groups to take on one dimension or another is just more government power and government intervention. What we need to do is make union membership voluntary and eliminate mandatory union dues and membership. Then the unions will have to actually serve their population in order to be attractive. Workers should have the right to gather and bargain collectively - they just shouldn't be required to do so.

Except that will never happen, it hasn't happened in the last 40 years or so. It is nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher in my state, or bad administrator. And since it won't change, and there is no sign that it ever will, vouchers are the only real option.

No - for the various reasons I've already cited. Your solution makes things worse.

BS, not for the 70% of poor families who want them and will probably use them. Their kids will escape this mess.

[carpedm9587]

These are moral questions at bottom, technology is mostly neutral when it come to these. It was the sexual revolution, feminism ("women need men like fish need bicycles") no fault divorce, increasing selfishness, the devaluing of traditional marriage, etc....

And you STILL haven't answered the question. So, once more, what is your practical, doable suggestion for keeping males with their families?

Except before white flight you have a much better tax base in these locals. You can't deny it, it was a real thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_...th_urban_decay

No one is denying the phenomenon of "white flight." But it is irrelevant to the discussion. There have ALWAYS been impoverished areas and richer areas. White flight may have made the problem worse, or changed the boundaries - but the problem is not "white flight" - the problem is local funding of schools. And, for the record, the issue of impoverished neighborhoods was exacerbated by the government policies, pre-civil-rights era (actually dating all the way back to the Great Depression), of intentionally encouraging racial segregation. There is a good summary of the policy here. Despite your attempt to paint this as a Democratic/liberal issue, both sides of the aisle and political divide were complicit.

Except that will never happen, it hasn't happened in the last 40 years or so. It is nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher in my state, or bad administrator. And since it won't change, and there is no sign that it ever will, vouchers are the only real option.

Challenges to unions HAVE succeeded is some isolated cases, so "never" is not a sustainable claim. It simply requires concerted effort to make it happen. On this issue I am solidly with the folks who tend to be on the right. If they brought attention to this issue, they could have some effect. After all, there was progress in at least two states in the past few years. As I have noted, vouchers don't solve the problem - they make the problem worse. Struggling schools will have even fewer resources.

BS, not for the 70% of poor families who want them and will probably use them. Their kids will escape this mess.

Continuing to assert this doesn't make it true. The fact is that the cost to run a school does not drop proportionate to those "escaping" the system, so the removed money further pushes struggling schools into the depths. Changing how schools are funded and overseen is the only viable option that I know of.

[Sparko]

And you STILL haven't answered the question. So, once more, what is your practical, doable suggestion for keeping males with their families?

Jesus.

You can't legislate morality and family. You have to change hearts.

[carpedm9587]

Jesus.

You can't legislate morality and family. You have to change hearts.

You also cannot impose religious beliefs on people, Sparko - so I see your suggestion as neither practical nor doable.

[Littlejoe]

And you STILL haven't answered the question. So, once more, what is your practical, doable suggestion for keeping males with their families?

IIRC, (I don't pretend to know that much about the welfare system), but I remember hearing that an unmarried women on welfare gets more or gets it easier because, they are single(?) and maybe lose it altogether or have it drastically reduced if there is another potential breadwinner legally in the residence (I.e. husband/Father) who may or may not be working. My understanding is that was a primary driver of single parent homes in poorer class neighborhoods. Maybe do away with that provision if it exists.

[carpedm9587]

IIRC, (I don't pretend to know that much about the welfare system), but I remember hearing that an unmarried women on welfare gets more or gets it easier because, they are single(?) and maybe lose it altogether or have it drastically reduced if there is another potential breadwinner legally in the residence (I.e. husband/Father) who may or may not be working. My understanding is that was a primary driver of single parent homes in poorer class neighborhoods. Maybe do away with that provision if it exists.

There are actually MANY provisions in the welfare system that are counter intuitive. For example, in this state, if a person gets gainful employment, they immediately loose some/all benefits, even if the employment produces an income that is less than the benefits when unemployed. The obvious results: people avoid getting/keeping jobs. The Dems tend to be guilty of introducing programs without adequate oversight and that encourage entitlement. The Reps tend to be guilty of forcing provisions onto the systems that are counter productive - and of eliminating funding to programs with demonstrable positive outcomes.

[Littlejoe]

There are actually MANY provisions in the welfare system that are counter intuitive. For example, in this state, if a person gets gainful employment, they immediately loose some/all benefits, even if the employment produces an income that is less than the benefits when unemployed. The obvious results: people avoid getting/keeping jobs. The Dems tend to be guilty of introducing programs without adequate oversight and that encourage entitlement. The Reps tend to be guilty of forcing provisions onto the systems that are counter productive - and of eliminating funding to programs with demonstrable positive outcomes.

IOW's, politician as a rule mess up everything....not surprising really...many of them have never had to deal with real life.

[carpedm9587]

IOW's, politician as a rule mess up everything....not surprising really...many of them have never had to deal with real life.

No argument on that from here...

[seer]

And you STILL haven't answered the question. So, once more, what is your practical, doable suggestion for keeping males with their families?

I told you, start by drumming the three solutions from Brookings into kids heads from an early grade through High School. Any one, rich poor or otherwise, could do those simple steps.

No one is denying the phenomenon of "white flight." But it is irrelevant to the discussion. There have ALWAYS been impoverished areas and richer areas. White flight may have made the problem worse, or changed the boundaries - but the problem is not "white flight" - the problem is local funding of schools. And, for the record, the issue of impoverished neighborhoods was exacerbated by the government policies, pre-civil-rights era (actually dating all the way back to the Great Depression), of intentionally encouraging racial segregation. There is a good summary of the policy here. Despite your attempt to paint this as a Democratic/liberal issue, both sides of the aisle and political divide were complicit.

Nonsense, if there wasn't white flight they would have more money for intercity schools. Besides, in my state we spend $14,000 - $19,000 per student,per year, in inner city schools, which is about the same, or even more, than many of the schools in the suburbs. If you can't teach a kid for fourteen grand a year get out of the business.

Challenges to unions HAVE succeeded is some isolated cases, so "never" is not a sustainable claim. It simply requires concerted effort to make it happen. On this issue I am solidly with the folks who tend to be on the right. If they brought attention to this issue, they could have some effect. After all, there was progress in at least two states in the past few years. As I have noted, vouchers don't solve the problem - they make the problem worse. Struggling schools will have even fewer resources.

Where? Certainly not in Democrat controlled cities where the bulk of these problems are happening.

Continuing to assert this doesn't make it true. The fact is that the cost to run a school does not drop proportionate to those "escaping" the system, so the removed money further pushes struggling schools into the depths. Changing how schools are funded and overseen is the only viable option that I know of.

I really don't care, this is just an excuse to keep these kids in failing schools, because nothing you suggested is going to be tried. That is how monopolies work, no incentive for change.

[Sparko]

You also cannot impose religious beliefs on people, Sparko - so I see your suggestion as neither practical nor doable.

I am not talking about imposing anything - I said Jesus was the only one who could change people's hearts. I don't think even you would argue against the fact that Christianity teaches a strong family value, and of husbands taking care of their wives and families. I think sharing the gospel is more important today than ever. But you can't force Christianity on people. Or legislate it.



But, as an aside, I do think our country's traditional family values started going downhill when they removed God from our schools.

[carpedm9587]

I am not talking about imposing anything - I said Jesus was the only one who could change people's hearts. I don't think even you would argue against the fact that Christianity teaches a strong family value, and of husbands taking care of their wives and families.

I have never argued otherwise. What I DO argue is that Christianity is not the only source of such teachings and ideas.

I think sharing the gospel is more important today than ever. But you can't force Christianity on people. Or legislate it.

I agree with the latter, but obviously not the former. Continuing to propagate the belief that people are incapable of making progress without aid from some for of deity is something that I believe is more harmful (in the long run) than beneficial. We are always better served when our life is rooted in reality. I believe it is time for people to let go of their dependence on non-existent gods and move forward. Obviously, you are not going to agree since you still believe these gods (or this god) actually exist(s).

But, as an aside, I do think our country's traditional family values started going downhill when they removed God from our schools.

Obviously, I'm going to disagree.

[carpedm9587]

I told you, start by drumming the three solutions from Brookings into kids heads from an early grade through High School. Any one, rich poor or otherwise, could do those simple steps.

So you are suggesting incorporating those ideas into school curricula? With that proposal I would agree. I think it would be a good idea to begin to build awareness of the consequences of particular choices on children from kindergarten through high school and on into college curricula.

Nonsense, if there wasn't white flight they would have more money for intercity schools. Besides, in my state we spend $14,000 - $19,000 per student,per year, in inner city schools, which is about the same, or even more, than many of the schools in the suburbs. If you can't teach a kid for fourteen grand a year get out of the business.

As I noted - white flight may have made the problem worse in some areas, or shifted the boundaries in others. It is not the root cause. The root cause is that funding for these schools depended on that income because it is locally sourced.

Where? Certainly not in Democrat controlled cities where the bulk of these problems are happening.

Not at the city level - but at the state level, such as Wisconsin's Act 10. However, such things also have a negative flip side. I applaud what Walker did - just not how he did it and how things ended up being structured.

I really don't care, this is just an excuse to keep these kids in failing schools, because nothing you suggested is going to be tried. That is how monopolies work, no incentive for change.

Well - if you don't care - then no response is necessary. Thanks for the chat.

[seer]

So you are suggesting incorporating those ideas into school curricula? With that proposal I would agree. I think it would be a good idea to begin to build awareness of the consequences of particular choices on children from kindergarten through high school and on into college curricula.

Good we agree on something!

As I noted - white flight may have made the problem worse in some areas, or shifted the boundaries in others. It is not the root cause. The root cause is that funding for these schools depended on that income because it is locally sourced.

But when the white middle class were still in these cities they had more monies for local schools (More locally sourced money). But again, if you can't educate a kid for fourteen grad a year, each, then get out of the way. How about this, we take a city like Hartford, they spend $14,190 a year per child per year. You give the parents who want it a $10,000 voucher. You would then have an extra $4,000 that would not follow the child and stay in the public school system. Since the actual number of students would go down, you would actually end up with more money per student.

Not at the city level - but at the state level, such as Wisconsin's Act 10. However, such things also have a negative flip side. I applaud what Walker did - just not how he did it and how things ended up being structured.

Right Republicans, Democrats wouldn't touch reform with a ten foot pole.