Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[Sparko]

Not all are lazy and shiftless. Some are clueless and get caught up in gangs or drugs. Those that WANT to get ahead will get into training and programs like you are talking about and work their way out of poverty.

The message is fairly clear: anyone who is poor CAN get out if they want to - and if they don't - they are either lazy, shiftless, or caught up in gangs and drugs. But that is not the truth - and not the reality. Indeed, most of the poor have little or no medical coverage - and one medical incident wipes them out. Let alone one problem with the car (if they have a car), or a sick/elderly parent, and the list goes on.

I repeat - your generalization is a gross caricature. It is both untrue - and (frankly) unworthy of you.

I was using YOUR term in my reply. You had accused me of calling people lazy and shiftless and I retorted Not all of them are lazy and shiftless. An attempt a humor. You were the one who started using that phrase as a way to denigrate what I said earlier and make me look like a heartless monster.

carp: In the face of that, dismissive attitudes like Sparko's are, frankly, offensive. They represent a broad attitude within many people on the right that is the inverse of the American dream. If we are the land of opportunity, it follows that anyone not "making it" must be lazy and shiftless.

[carpedm9587]

I was using YOUR term in my reply. You had accused me of calling people lazy and shiftless and I retorted Not all of them are lazy and shiftless. An attempt a humor. You were the one who started using that phrase as a way to denigrate what I said earlier and make me look like a heartless monster.

carp: In the face of that, dismissive attitudes like Sparko's are, frankly, offensive. They represent a broad attitude within many people on the right that is the inverse of the American dream. If we are the land of opportunity, it follows that anyone not "making it" must be lazy and shiftless.

Yes - I know you were repeating my words, and then added the other thing they could be: caught up in drugs and gangs. By your own words, anyone who WANTS to make it out CAN make it out. It follows that those who have not make it out don't want to - so they embrace their poverty and are lazy, shiftless, or involved in drugs or gangs.

They are your words, Sparko. And yes - I find your position reprehensible and dismissive. I wish there were words to get you to see how wrong you are - but my experience with people who hold your position is that there are no such words. The attitude is deeply embedded and intransigent. That's why I disconnected earlier - further discussion is pointless.

I should have stayed disconnected.

[seer]

There is no question in my mind that HOW poverty has been addressed is ineffective. I fault both the Democrats (who tend to create programs without appropriate controls and consequences) and Republicans (who tend to regularly gut programs without regard for outcomes) for that reality. Programs that have shown solid results are defunded (usually by Republicans) and programs with dubious results continue to consume resources (usually pushed by Democrats). And the current climate of "let's not work together" pretty much ensures that will continue indefinitely.

Carp, it is obvious that more money is not the answer. How about drumming into kids, from an early age, the three points the Brookings mentioned that really do work. Then give underprivlaged parents vouchers so they can send their kids to the school of their choice.

[seer]

No - I am suggesting that the poor don't always have the luxury (or skill) to be good parents. Anyone can father/mother a child. It's a biological act. Not everyone can be a good parent. Poor parenting then leads to children who make poor decisions, locking them into the same cycle. And sometimes it's merely a matter of time. By way of example, I am working with one family where the father left, the mother has 3 children, she is working two jobs to make ends meet. Meanwhile, funding has been cut for after-school programs, so the kids come out of school and have no supervision until mom gets home (often after a second shift) in the late evening. She is often out the next morning before the kids are even off to school, leaving the older child (12) to slap together breakfast and get the kids to the bus. This kind of scenario plays out all over.

Your after school programs do next to nothing to help anything. Again from Brookings:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/t...t-doesnt-work/

Poverty is directly linked to crime and healthcare costs. Address poverty, and you significantly reduce the latter, creating a benefit for all. Your "forced charity" is my "enlightened self-interest."

And poverty is directly related to single parenthood. https://assets.prb.org/pdf10/single-motherfamilies.pdf

[Sparko]

Yes - I know you were repeating my words, and then added the other thing they could be: caught up in drugs and gangs. By your own words, anyone who WANTS to make it out CAN make it out. It follows that those who have not make it out don't want to - so they embrace their poverty and are lazy, shiftless, or involved in drugs or gangs.

They are your words, Sparko. And yes - I find your position reprehensible and dismissive. I wish there were words to get you to see how wrong you are - but my experience with people who hold your position is that there are no such words. The attitude is deeply embedded and intransigent. That's why I disconnected earlier - further discussion is pointless.

I should have stayed disconnected.

Yes, Carp. But you take everything as someone says in the worst light possible and make it completely black and white, just so you can build a strawman to burn. When I say that people can make it out of poverty if they try, that doesn't mean there are not exceptions. There are situations where someone can become trapped, or is disabled in some way so they have no choice. I am not saying everyone who is poor is lazy. I have no problem with people who NEED welfare or food stamps. You mentioned "Building principles into children is hard work. It requires time and energy. Many of the families I work with are struggling just to keep their heads above water. The groups I work with are quick to spot the person who is just out to "game the system" and they are quickly disconnected. But they are the minority, at least in this area. And we often cannot meet all of the need for those truly struggling to escape poverty, because we lack the resources."

So you realize that there are people who ARE "gaming the system" and there are people who are trying to get out from poverty. So you basically just said the very same thing I was saying. Except in your mind you are the "hero" and I am reprehensible. I know people can climb out of poverty because not only have I done it, I have seen it happen countless times. And I have helped other who needed it. But there are those who don't want to try. They would rather keep welfare than get a job. Some are indeed lazy, some are just too scared to take the risk. They are all responsible for their choices and actions.

THE EMPLOYER IS NOT. That is what started this conversation. You seem to think that the employer OWES employees a decent job and living. They don't. It's great if they have the morality to do so and I applaud it. But the only obligation the employer has it so offer a job and then treat the employee fairly by paying them what they agreed to, giving them decent working conditions, and making a product that people want to buy.

Poor people are not a homogeneous group. They are as varied a population as the middle class and anyone else. Their are those who are poor due to circumstances not their own, those who are mentally ill, hooked on drugs or alcohol, those who are lazy, those who have lost everything in disasters, blacks, whites, brown, old, young. And they all have the same capabilities as others. About the only major difference between most poor and middle class is EDUCATION/SKILLS. If someone has a good education or a workable skill set, and are able bodied, they can find a way out of poverty. Maybe not overnight. They might need to work 2 or 3 jobs at first, but eventually they will be able to put their skills to work at a job that pays a decent wage.

Buy hey, thanks for letting me have the last word. Again.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, it is obvious that more money is not the answer.

I don't believe "more money" was any part of my argument.

How about drumming into kids, from an early age, the three points the Brookings mentioned that really do work. Then give underprivlaged parents vouchers so they can send their kids to the school of their choice.

And how do you prose ensuring that all existing parents are good parents? That is the very problem with the cycle of poverty Seer. You're hoping for a pipe dream. And a parent can't "drum a principle in" when they are working 10-12 hours per day. They aren't even present.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, Carp. But you take everything as someone says in the worst light possible and make it completely black and white, just so you can build a strawman to burn. When I say that people can make it out of poverty if they try, that doesn't mean there are not exceptions. There are situations where someone can become trapped, or is disabled in some way so they have no choice. I am not saying everyone who is poor is lazy. I have no problem with people who NEED welfare or food stamps. You mentioned "Building principles into children is hard work. It requires time and energy. Many of the families I work with are struggling just to keep their heads above water. The groups I work with are quick to spot the person who is just out to "game the system" and they are quickly disconnected. But they are the minority, at least in this area. And we often cannot meet all of the need for those truly struggling to escape poverty, because we lack the resources."

So you realize that there are people who ARE "gaming the system" and there are people who are trying to get out from poverty. So you basically just said the very same thing I was saying. Except in your mind you are the "hero" and I am reprehensible. I know people can climb out of poverty because not only have I done it, I have seen it happen countless times. And I have helped other who needed it. But there are those who don't want to try. They would rather keep welfare than get a job. Some are indeed lazy, some are just too scared to take the risk. They are all responsible for their choices and actions.

THE EMPLOYER IS NOT. That is what started this conversation. You seem to think that the employer OWES employees a decent job and living. They don't. It's great if they have the morality to do so and I applaud it. But the only obligation the employer has it so offer a job and then treat the employee fairly by paying them what they agreed to, giving them decent working conditions, and making a product that people want to buy.

Poor people are not a homogeneous group. They are as varied a population as the middle class and anyone else. Their are those who are poor due to circumstances not their own, those who are mentally ill, hooked on drugs or alcohol, those who are lazy, those who have lost everything in disasters, blacks, whites, brown, old, young. And they all have the same capabilities as others. About the only major difference between most poor and middle class is EDUCATION/SKILLS. If someone has a good education or a workable skill set, and are able bodied, they can find a way out of poverty. Maybe not overnight. They might need to work 2 or 3 jobs at first, but eventually they will be able to put their skills to work at a job that pays a decent wage.

Buy hey, thanks for letting me have the last word. Again.

Just letting you know I read your post.

[seer]

And how do you prose ensuring that all existing parents are good parents? That is the very problem with the cycle of poverty Seer. You're hoping for a pipe dream. And a parent can't "drum a principle in" when they are working 10-12 hours per day. They aren't even present.

Carp, this is nonsense. You are suggesting the "poor" people can't be moral. I got full custody of my son when he was ten, with not one penny of child support. I made 50 cents over minimum. So I worked a part time first shift job and a full time second shift job, and he grew up fine. And I mean the schools should drum in these principles. What is your magic bullet? But why don't you support vouchers? African Americans do...

https://jointcenter.org/sites/defaul...ducation_0.pdf

[carpedm9587]

Carp, this is nonsense. You are suggesting the "poor" people can't be moral.

That was never part of my argument.

I got full custody of my son when he was ten, with not one penny of child support. I made 50 cents over minimum. So I worked a part time first shift job and a full time second shift job, and he grew up fine. And I mean the schools should drum in these principles.

Appealing to your personal experience does not address the issue, Seer. There are many people out there who grew up in dysfunctional homes, so they didn't get the upraising they should have received and had poor role models for parenting. Their children, as a result, grew up in dysfunctional homes, and didn't get the parenting they should have. Generation after generation, the cycle repeats - with children who were poorly raised making bad decisions, getting themselves in a quandary, and repeating the cycle. THIS is the cycle that begets poverty. Some escape from it. Some simply repeat the cycle. Wishing that every parent was magically a great parent and could function in ways their own parents didn't isn't going to make it so. Pronouncing "all they have to do this" and it will all magically be better is not going to make it so.

What is your magic bullet?

I don't have a "magic bullet." As far as I know, there is no such thing. Clearly some form of support system needs to be put in place to provide support and coaching and guidance to break the cycle. It needs to be done locally, to address local nuances. If the cycle is broken, we all benefit: lower crime, lower healthcare costs, likely reductions in abortions and unwanted pregnancies. But wishing things were otherwise and declaring by fiat that "government should not be involved" doesn't do the deed. It's a national problem with national ramifications affecting us all - and that is what government exists to deal with.

But why don't you support vouchers? African Americans do...

I am truly curious where you arrived at the conclusion that I don't support vouchers, and why what African Americans support would have any impact on my own position.

[seer]

I don't have a "magic bullet." As far as I know, there is no such thing. Clearly some form of support system needs to be put in place to provide support and coaching and guidance to break the cycle. It needs to be done locally, to address local nuances. If the cycle is broken, we all benefit: lower crime, lower healthcare costs, likely reductions in abortions and unwanted pregnancies. But wishing things were otherwise and declaring by fiat that "government should not be involved" doesn't do the deed. It's a national problem with national ramifications affecting us all - and that is what government exists to deal with.

Well I don't know what we can try that hasn't been tried. Somehow keeping the father in the home would be a start...

I am truly curious where you arrived at the conclusion that I don't support vouchers, and why what African Americans support would have any impact on my own position.

Well blacks in theses communities have a better idea of what they need. So you you do support vouchers?

[carpedm9587]

Well I don't know what we can try that hasn't been tried. Somehow keeping the father in the home would be a start...

Great idea. Let's make a law that males cannot leave the home if they have children. I'm sure that won't be seen as government intervention

Well blacks in theses communities have a better idea of what they need. So you you do support vouchers?

Generally, no (though I don't recall having voiced an opinion on this subject before - at least here). The problem with vouchers is that they ignore the reality that the cost for running a school does not drop proportionately with the reduction in student membership - so the relocated funds simply erode the school system and makes it worse for those "left behind." There is a tax-based public school system freely available to all. Those who wish not to avail themselves of it are free to make that choice, but should then deal with the costs themselves.

The solution to problem schools, IMO, is not to further defund them - but rather (again) to provide the resources to make a failing school successful, and change the leadership when it is not. Those needs will vary from location to location, so this needs to be handled at the local level, perhaps with an influx of federal funds. Block grants, perhaps? The current system of funding schools from local property taxes is, IMO, fatally flawed. Rich areas will have ample funding, and impoverished areas will have poor schools. THAT is the problem that needs to be solved, IMO.

[seer]

Great idea. Let's make a law that males cannot leave the home if they have children. I'm sure that won't be seen as government intervention

You have a better idea?

Generally, no (though I don't recall having voiced an opinion on this subject before - at least here). The problem with vouchers is that they ignore the reality that the cost for running a school does not drop proportionately with the reduction in student membership - so the relocated funds simply erode the school system and makes it worse for those "left behind." There is a tax-based public school system freely available to all. Those who wish not to avail themselves of it are free to make that choice, but should then deal with the costs themselves.

So keep them in failing schools...

The solution to problem schools, IMO, is not to further defund them - but rather (again) to provide the resources to make a failing school successful, and change the leadership when it is not. Those needs will vary from location to location, so this needs to be handled at the local level, perhaps with an influx of federal funds. Block grants, perhaps? The current system of funding schools from local property taxes is, IMO, fatally flawed. Rich areas will have ample funding, and impoverished areas will have poor schools. THAT is the problem that needs to be solved, IMO.

Nonsense, we have 50 years of failure in these schools no matter how much money we pour in. Time to break the monopolies, monopolies are never good.

[carpedm9587]

You have a better idea?

Seer - it's not an "idea." It's a hope - a wish - a desire most of us have: that men would stay with their families and stay with the commitment. First, there is no way I know of to make it happen. Frankly, it's part of the "cycle" problem. Young men grow up in families with no father, so they grow up to believe "no father" is fine. You're not going to make the problem go away by wishing it. And even if they stay, you have the second problem: there is no more guarantee that they will be good parents than there is with the mother. You're not proposing any real solution. Your just wishing for how things could be.

So keep them in failing schools...

No - change the systems so that failing schools can be turned around. It's not an impossible task. It has been done in many places and times. But to do it, we have to value teachers (instead of regularly denigrating them), we have to hold administrations accountable, and we have to have adequate funding for the student population served. These days we also have to have adequate security.

Nonsense, we have 50 years of failure in these schools no matter how much money we pour in. Time to break the monopolies, monopolies are never good.

"Pouring money in" was never an answer. Just because nobody has actually been willing (or able) to put forward a model that solves the problems - because politics gets in the way - does not mean we simply throw in the towel. It requires someone with solid leadership to tackle the problem - and it requires people wanting to actually solve it - rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, "well - THAT will never work."

We have some amazingly excellent public schools - so clearly the system CAN work. The task is to replicate that so that ALL schools have those benefits and resources. You paint a picture of a 100% failed system - it's not. It's a system with serious imperfections - and much of those are in impoverished areas. That is why I believe local funding is a nonstarter.

[seer]

Seer - it's not an "idea." It's a hope - a wish - a desire most of us have: that men would stay with their families and stay with the commitment. First, there is no way I know of to make it happen. Frankly, it's part of the "cycle" problem. Young men grow up in families with no father, so they grow up to believe "no father" is fine. You're not going to make the problem go away by wishing it. And even if they stay, you have the second problem: there is no more guarantee that they will be good parents than there is with the mother. You're not proposing any real solution. Your just wishing for how things could be.

On every level children do better in two parent families, including when it comes to poverty. https://assets.prb.org/pdf10/single-motherfamilies.pdf

No - change the systems so that failing schools can be turned around. It's not an impossible task. It has been done in many places and times. But to do it, we have to value teachers (instead of regularly denigrating them), we have to hold administrations accountable, and we have to have adequate funding for the student population served. These days we also have to have adequate security.

There you go - throw more money at it, and I don't anyone who devalues teachers.

"Pouring money in" was never an answer. Just because nobody has actually been willing (or able) to put forward a model that solves the problems - because politics gets in the way - does not mean we simply throw in the towel. It requires someone with solid leadership to tackle the problem - and it requires people wanting to actually solve it - rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, "well - THAT will never work."

We have some amazingly excellent public schools - so clearly the system CAN work. The task is to replicate that so that ALL schools have those benefits and resources. You paint a picture of a 100% failed system - it's not. It's a system with serious imperfections - and much of those are in impoverished areas. That is why I believe local funding is a nonstarter.

So you like monopolies in schooling, where else do you like monopolies?

[carpedm9587]

On every level children do better in two parent families, including when it comes to poverty. https://assets.prb.org/pdf10/single-motherfamilies.pdf

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.

There you go - throw more money at it, and I don't anyone who devalues teachers.

"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.

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.

So you like monopolies in schooling, where else do you like monopolies?

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.