Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 115

Thread: Is Poverty Even Breakable In The US?

  1. Top | #41
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, USA
    Posts
    3,280
    Archived
    1,766
    Total Posts
    5,046
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Whatever happened to Voc Tech in high school? I remember my high school had an entire wing dedicated to it. Checking the school website, there is a heading for it with no content.
    I think a blue-collar education is as close as we can get to quelling as much poverty as possible. I mean if you’re not willing to accept free training for a vocation, you need a compelling reason to be on the dole.
    We can do better than that. The middle class is the most stable, law-abiding, and education appreciating part of the population. Pay the poor more for the work they already do. Put the poor into the middle class.

    Follow up by evening out the financial support for schools, the amount of funding going to education in the whole nation is probably about right, but the distribution of the funds is uneven. Consider if we really believed that the solution to poverty was education we would put more money into the schools that taught the children of the poor, the exact opposite of what we do.

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, USA
    Posts
    3,280
    Archived
    1,766
    Total Posts
    5,046
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    It's not just the 'poor' who struggle, also workers that do essential work within the economy but are poorly paid for their time and effort.
    << bingo >>

    I think that the main argument against paying the poor more for the work they already do comes from the fantasy economics believers, as in a self-regulating free market, free trade, deregulation, etc. that have time and again proven to be either unobtainable or destructive in their own right. These people invariably think that the labor market is a nearly perfect market that pays workers what they are worth in spite of all available evidence that people are paid what they can negotiate. And that for more than fifty years we have been reducing workers' abilities to negotiate.

  3. Top | #43
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,332
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,704
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleDon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    You can't hope to solve a problem if you don't first acknowledge it. It doesn't mean denigration. But it does mean the 50 plus year of liberal spending and social engineering should probably stop. If such policies were helpful, then the issue would have gone away a long time ago.
    I fully agree. The War on Poverty of the 1960s only solved one-half of the problem. It obviously didn't work. Why settle for half measure? This is why we slowly got rid of it.

    But you are demonizing the poor for having a congenital defect, do you honestly believe that what you are doing will eliminate poverty? I think not.

    It probably is because it somehow absolves you in your mind from supporting the obvious solution embraced by most other highly developed countries, pay the poor more for the work that they already do.
    Who pays the poor more to work? Who? You? It might be a better perspective to encourage manufacturers to reshore and have government exclusively buy US made products. But that’s an America first position, so it’s bad.

  4. Top | #44
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,738
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,211
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleDon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    It's not just the 'poor' who struggle, also workers that do essential work within the economy but are poorly paid for their time and effort.
    << bingo >>

    I think that the main argument against paying the poor more for the work they already do comes from the fantasy economics believers, as in a self-regulating free market, free trade, deregulation, etc. that have time and again proven to be either unobtainable or destructive in their own right. These people invariably think that the labor market is a nearly perfect market that pays workers what they are worth in spite of all available evidence that people are paid what they can negotiate. And that for more than fifty years we have been reducing workers' abilities to negotiate.
    The US intentionally transitioned to a service based economy. This means that services matter as they are a larger portion of our economy. The idea that "burger flippers labor" isn't worth a viable wage seems a peculiar claim as there certainly is a demand for burgers in the United States, so Americans demand burgers be flipped.

    In the 19th century, hard labor was considered not worthy of a viable wage either. That isn't viewed as acceptable anymore for white people. Hispanics working in farms...

    So America needs to come to grips with reality. If we got rid of the factory production, then service jobs need to provide these sorts of wages... or we have a permanent underclass that we whine about regarding violence, crime, drugs, poverty that comes from such a thing.

    Of course, this doesn't fix housing, schools, etc... in impoverished areas lacking grocery stores, banks, and other things that us other people take for granted.

  5. Top | #45
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,332
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,704
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleDon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Whatever happened to Voc Tech in high school? I remember my high school had an entire wing dedicated to it. Checking the school website, there is a heading for it with no content.
    I think a blue-collar education is as close as we can get to quelling as much poverty as possible. I mean if you’re not willing to accept free training for a vocation, you need a compelling reason to be on the dole.
    We can do better than that. The middle class is the most stable, law-abiding, and education appreciating part of the population. Pay the poor more for the work they already do. Put the poor into the middle class.

    Follow up by evening out the financial support for schools, the amount of funding going to education in the whole nation is probably about right, but the distribution of the funds is uneven. Consider if we really believed that the solution to poverty was education we would put more money into the schools that taught the children of the poor, the exact opposite of what we do.
    New York spends $36k per student. Utah spends $7k per student. Utah has a higher high school graduation rate.

  6. Top | #46
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,304
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,247
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleDon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Whatever happened to Voc Tech in high school? I remember my high school had an entire wing dedicated to it. Checking the school website, there is a heading for it with no content.
    I think a blue-collar education is as close as we can get to quelling as much poverty as possible. I mean if you’re not willing to accept free training for a vocation, you need a compelling reason to be on the dole.
    We can do better than that. The middle class is the most stable, law-abiding, and education appreciating part of the population. Pay the poor more for the work they already do. Put the poor into the middle class.

    Follow up by evening out the financial support for schools, the amount of funding going to education in the whole nation is probably about right, but the distribution of the funds is uneven. Consider if we really believed that the solution to poverty was education we would put more money into the schools that taught the children of the poor, the exact opposite of what we do.
    New York spends $36k per student. Utah spends $7k per student. Utah has a higher high school graduation rate.
    Do you have an actual point? Those numbers have virtually no meaning.

    First, they are incorrect. This site (https://educationdata.org/public-edu...ing-statistics) has the State of New Work spending $24K per student and Utah spending $7.6K per student.

    Second, they do not account for differences in the cost of living. According to this site (https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...index-by-state), the cost of living in the State of New York is 40% higher than Utah. So adjusting the spending per pupil for the cost of living yields that NY state spending per pupil is $17.1K per student compared to Utah's spending per student.

    Third, they do not measure what is learned or for the difficulty of graduating from high school.

  7. Top | #47
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,332
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,704
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    New York spends $36k per student. Utah spends $7k per student. Utah has a higher high school graduation rate.
    Do you have an actual point? Those numbers have virtually no meaning.

    First, they are incorrect. This site (https://educationdata.org/public-edu...ing-statistics) has the State of New Work spending $24K per student and Utah spending $7.6K per student.

    Second, they do not account for differences in the cost of living. According to this site (https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...index-by-state), the cost of living in the State of New York is 40% higher than Utah. So adjusting the spending per pupil for the cost of living yields that NY state spending per pupil is $17.1K per student compared to Utah's spending per student.

    Third, they do not measure what is learned or for the difficulty of graduating from high school.
    Watch out, lg. Someone might think you’re saying throwing more money at a problem doesn’t solve the problem.

  8. Top | #48
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,096
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,751
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    New York spends $36k per student. Utah spends $7k per student. Utah has a higher high school graduation rate.
    Do you have an actual point? Those numbers have virtually no meaning.

    First, they are incorrect. This site (https://educationdata.org/public-edu...ing-statistics) has the State of New Work spending $24K per student and Utah spending $7.6K per student.

    Second, they do not account for differences in the cost of living. According to this site (https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...index-by-state), the cost of living in the State of New York is 40% higher than Utah. So adjusting the spending per pupil for the cost of living yields that NY state spending per pupil is $17.1K per student compared to Utah's spending per student.

    Third, they do not measure what is learned or for the difficulty of graduating from high school.
    Watch out, lg. Someone might think you’re saying throwing more money at a problem doesn’t solve the problem.
    Only if you aren't paying attention or don't think too hard.

  9. Top | #49
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,332
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,704
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    Watch out, lg. Someone might think you’re saying throwing more money at a problem doesn’t solve the problem.
    Only if you aren't paying attention or don't think too hard.
    1980s. Missouri v. Jenkins. Federal court ordered billions to improve Kansas City schools. Result? Well, what do ya think?

  10. Top | #50
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,517
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    21,031
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleDon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    It's not just the 'poor' who struggle, also workers that do essential work within the economy but are poorly paid for their time and effort.
    << bingo >>

    I think that the main argument against paying the poor more for the work they already do comes from the fantasy economics believers, as in a self-regulating free market, free trade, deregulation, etc. that have time and again proven to be either unobtainable or destructive in their own right. These people invariably think that the labor market is a nearly perfect market that pays workers what they are worth in spite of all available evidence that people are paid what they can negotiate. And that for more than fifty years we have been reducing workers' abilities to negotiate.
    The US intentionally transitioned to a service based economy. This means that services matter as they are a larger portion of our economy. The idea that "burger flippers labor" isn't worth a viable wage seems a peculiar claim as there certainly is a demand for burgers in the United States, so Americans demand burgers be flipped.

    In the 19th century, hard labor was considered not worthy of a viable wage either. That isn't viewed as acceptable anymore for white people. Hispanics working in farms...

    So America needs to come to grips with reality. If we got rid of the factory production, then service jobs need to provide these sorts of wages... or we have a permanent underclass that we whine about regarding violence, crime, drugs, poverty that comes from such a thing.

    Of course, this doesn't fix housing, schools, etc... in impoverished areas lacking grocery stores, banks, and other things that us other people take for granted.
    IMO, the basic problem you're looking at is that the poor have no political muscle, and that the overarching culture in the U.S. doesn't want an economy that supports it's poor. Canada is functionally the same country but with fewer Conservatives, and greater social support just happens. In the Western world the U.S. is actually quite unique that way.

    So how do you have a political revolution when the majority doesn't want a political revolution?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •