Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you understand it, Burger-flipping doesn't add enough value to the US to warrent a salary sufficient to purchase a house.
It is a low-value job, done by people with precious little else to offer society. Not the stuff of home ownership, which is reserved for people who have earned it.
One way of looking at the minimum wage is this. If it isn't what eve an hour then we can't afford to have an American waisting their time doing it. Now if We were to raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour then there would be a window when the already built houses would be affordable to burger flippers. The new houses built after the minimum wage hike again would not be affordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
(cursor is acting seriously spastic)
there is demand for 400-sf houses on 2,500-sf lots
many 400-sf houses exist but not 2,500-sf lots
because local goverernments prohibit such lots
through zoning.
so the private sector builds the houses but government
allows burger flippers to rent them but not buy them.
That isn't nice of the government now is it. Those houses wouldn't have driven the housing bubble. They would have been economically sustainable.
I've seen it already, and you're generalizing a lot and coming to conclusions that are not necessary. All these kids who didn't get into the school at the end, those parents have every opportunity to help the kids themselves, I mean, they already know enough to want to help them get into the better school, right? But how many of them take the steps to get a tutor, tutor the kids themselves, encourage good study habits, etc.? It's the parents' fault in a lot of cases, the school system is not just one gigantic babysitting service.
Either way, when you reach adulthood, you know when you are lacking and that you'll have to do something to change your lot in life. Bad parents, bad schools, it doesn't matter, when you get into the real world and realize there is something missing or holding you back, it's up to you to take matters into your own hands to get what you need to succeed.
This is why I'm saying I'm so dang sick of all the excuses. Adults should act like adults and take responsibility for their lives. We had a young employee, I think about 22 years old, saying he's the way he is b/c he was abused growing up. Seriously? You're not working a dead end job with no chance of promotion just b/c you were abused as a kid. Grow the heck up.
I find it hard to believe you actually watched the film. Or else you didn't comprehend what you were seeing. Pretty well every parent in the film is shown tutoring their children, or obtaining outside tutoring, and checking on the kid's homework.
In one scene, a mother tries over and over again to get her son's teacher to call her back for a parent/teacher meeting. He never does.
There was one mother working as hard as she could to pay the $500 a month tuition for a Catholic grade school to avoid the public school drop-out factories in their area. When she had some reduction in hours in one of her jobs, and she couldn't pay the $500, the school would not allow her 7-year-old daughter to attend her class graduation. The mother and daughter were both devastated. The mother applied to one of the charter schools for which since demand exceeds the number of placements available, are determined by lottery. Her daughter did not win the lottery. There were no other options.
Out of about 5 students featured in the film, only 2 won lottery placements to good schools. The odds were against them, and ranged from about a 1 in 3 chance to 1 in 14. Meaning most of the kids, all facing the trials of education in failing schools were forced to return to those schools. A lottery? Just to get an adequate public school education? It's shameful.
These parents were getting up before dawn to accompany their kids to school on public transportation. Many of the parents themselves were products of failed school systems, or had had to drop out early. Many of them had to drop out to support their families of origin.
One young boy, the one who actually made into a charter school, had no mother, his father had died of a drug overdose, and was being raised by his grandmother. Now, he is excelling and plans to go to college. The chance of him doing that without having gotten into the charter school were next to zero.
When it comes to disadvantages due to upbringing, educational opportunities, money, etc, there are two types of people.
The ones that use any or all of it(them) as an excuse and then there are those that will use it(them) as an incentive.
When it comes to disadvantages due to upbringing, educational opportunities, money, etc, there are two types of people.
The ones that use any or all of it(them) as an excuse and then there are those that will use it(them) as an incentive.
One type will advance. The other won't .
When you have certain schools at which the odds are higher that a student will not graduate than that they will, there is a systemic problem, not an individual one. And the solution is usually systemic, not individual.
I find it hard to believe you actually watched the film. Or else you didn't comprehend what you were seeing. Pretty well every parent in the film is shown tutoring their children, or obtaining outside tutoring, and checking on the kid's homework.
In one scene, a mother tries over and over again to get her son's teacher to call her back for a parent/teacher meeting. He never does.
There was one mother working as hard as she could to pay the $500 a month tuition for a Catholic grade school to avoid the public school drop-out factories in their area. When she had some reduction in hours in one of her jobs, and she couldn't pay the $500, the school would not allow her 7-year-old daughter to attend her class graduation. The mother and daughter were both devastated. The mother applied to one of the charter schools for which since demand exceeds the number of placements available, are determined by lottery. Her daughter did not win the lottery. There were no other options.
Out of about 5 students featured in the film, only 2 won lottery placements to good schools. The odds were against them, and ranged from about a 1 in 3 chance to 1 in 14. Meaning most of the kids, all facing the trials of education in failing schools were forced to return to those schools. A lottery? Just to get an adequate public school education? It's shameful.
These parents were getting up before dawn to accompany their kids to school on public transportation. Many of the parents themselves were products of failed school systems, or had had to drop out early. Many of them had to drop out to support their families of origin.
One young boy, the one who actually made into a charter school, had no mother, his father had died of a drug overdose, and was being raised by his grandmother. Now, he is excelling and plans to go to college. The chance of him doing that without having gotten into the charter school were next to zero.
Your "story" emphasizes the point-
Single parent families, lack of parental responsibility, lack of emphasis on education, and no work ethic yields poverty.
Change the CULTURE. If you throw money at the same terrible culture, the same people will be poor again in a few years.
Of course, "changing the culture" is politically incorrect and requires introspection and facing reality. This would be considered "racist" today! As we have found with the education system, throwing money at a culture which has single parent families and no emphasis on education is a waste of money. The want and need to improve must start in the home.
Single parent families, lack of parental responsibility, lack of emphasis on education, and no work ethic yields poverty.
Change the CULTURE. If you throw money at the same terrible culture, the same people will be poor again in a few years.
Of course, "changing the culture" is politically incorrect and requires introspection and facing reality. This would be considered "racist" today! As we have found with the education system, throwing money at a culture which has single parent families and no emphasis on education is a waste of money. The want and need to improve must start in the home.
It appears to be the opposite of what you are saying.
For example, one charter school was established in the area of Harlem with the worst schools and the worst student performance. Charter school students ended up with national testing scores that not only exceeded the test performance scores of other schools in their district, but also exceeded national averages. Their background, the poverty and crime in their neighborhoods, the educational status of their parents---none of those factors changed. Simply access to a better school made a huge difference in how well these kids did.
It appears to be the opposite of what you are saying.
For example, one charter school was established in the area of Harlem with the worst schools and the worst student performance. Charter school students ended up with national testing scores that not only exceeded the test performance scores of other schools in their district, but also exceeded national averages. Their background, the poverty and crime in their neighborhoods, the educational status of their parents---none of those factors changed. Simply access to a better school made a huge difference in how well these kids did.
But public schools cannot expel the bad elements due to laws.
So the only alternative is to leave the public schools if your child is at risk and you want them to have the best opportunity.
But public schools cannot expel the bad elements due to laws.
So the only alternative is to leave the public schools if your child is at risk and you want them to have the best opportunity.
I don't know if by bad elements you are referring to teachers or students, but I'm assuming you mean bad teachers.
There are not enough charter schools available, and many parents cannot afford the tuition for Catholic or private schools, so they are stuck with what they get.
It appears to be the opposite of what you are saying.
For example, one charter school was established in the area of Harlem with the worst schools and the worst student performance. Charter school students ended up with national testing scores that not only exceeded the test performance scores of other schools in their district, but also exceeded national averages. Their background, the poverty and crime in their neighborhoods, the educational status of their parents---none of those factors changed. Simply access to a better school made a huge difference in how well these kids did.
What changed was the subset of kids who had parents that cared enough to get them out of the school full of kids whose parents didn't care.
The schools aren't bad - the kids are bad. It's not their fault - it is their parent's fault.
You could take every one of those kids from a crappy school and put them in your $500 Catholic school, and changing no other factors, the Catholic school would be a crappy school in a few semesters.
Harvard isn't a great school because they have great professors - it is a great school because it attracts the brightest students. The brightest kids allows it to attract great faculty, but which came first?
You can't promote a culture through liberalism of single-moms, welfare, zero religion, no consequences, social promotion, "victim mentality", etc, etc, and then cry when you have cities full of kids who can't read and don't graduate.
You use the word "systemic" - it is systemic. The broken system isn't the schools.
What changed was the subset of kids who had parents that cared enough to get them out of the school full of kids whose parents didn't care.
The schools aren't bad - the kids are bad. It's not their fault - it is their parent's fault.
You could take every one of those kids from a crappy school and put them in your $500 Catholic school, and changing no other factors, the Catholic school would be a crappy school in a few semesters.
Harvard isn't a great school because they have great professors - it is a great school because it attracts the brightest students. The brightest kids allows it to attract great faculty, but which came first?
You can't promote a culture through liberalism of single-moms, welfare, zero religion, no consequences, social promotion, "victim mentality", etc, etc, and then cry when you have cities full of kids who can't read and don't graduate.
You use the word "systemic" - it is systemic. The broken system isn't the schools.
The parents whose kids lost the lottery to get into the charter schools care just as much as the parents of the kids who did win admission to the charter schools. And those kids will continue to do worse, not because of their parents or because they are stupid, but because of the failing schools they have no other option but to attend.
The charter schools in failing school districts do just that: they take the kids from crappy schools and put them in a better school, and no, the better school doesn't become crappy. The formerly crappy students become much better.
In the film, "Waiting for Superman", there was one student featured that came from an affluent area of Silicon Valley. Despite a well-funded affluent school district, and a school that from the outside looked perfect, the school actually churned out poorly educated students year after year. Her parents were highly educated, affluent, concerned. And even with all those resources the student was doing poorly. She was lucky enough to win a slot in a charter school, and after she became a student at that school, she absolutely excelled. She said the schools were like night-and-day. This was a girl with great potential, and a great background, who did crappy because she was in a crappy school. When she went to a better school, she did great.
I would even disagree a bit about Harvard. Yes, it gets the top students. But it also delivers a high-quality education. I had a friend whose son was accepted to the Naval Academy. Before that he had been a middling student at the local high school. He told his father it was impossible to fail at a place like the Naval Academy because the class size was so small, and the teachers were excellent. They had time to give the students individual attention. His grades improved vastly. Did HE change? No. He went to a better school.
And I would keep religion out of it. The most religious areas of the country, are usually the ones with the worst educational systems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
! As we have found with the education system, throwing money at a culture which has single parent families and no emphasis on education is a waste of money. The want and need to improve must start in the home.
