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.
im center-left and dont get why more of those on the left wont get on the voucher idea. i know its because of the unions, but it isnt working.
ive also said that i believe the same white conservatives who talk about vouchers are going to be whining when these camden kids come to there white kids schools.
I cannot imagine the private sector chomping at the bit to open and operate private schools in Camden.
How might the folk in Cherry Hill ( 12-15 minutes from Camden) react to having tens of thousands of students from Camden land on their doorstep?
I cannot imagine the private sector chomping at the bit to open and operate private schools in Camden.
You're mistaken. There are charter companies that are going to get the contracts to run the Camden public schools who most definitely are chomping at the bit. They have worked it out beautifully - they will be private and profit-driven, and they will be paid via the public money currently going to public schools, rather than by families paying tuition. Why else would the former charter school lobbyist turned governor appoint a 33 year old venture capitalist to turn around the schools? The end game is not improving student performance or experience, but privatization. Great chunks of money currently going to programs and teacher salary & benefits will instead be funneled to the stakeholders in the charter companies. And anyone who thinks this will somehow magically result in improved learning experiences for students is deluded. The hand-wringing in the article is for show - nobody cares about the students but their families and many of their teachers.
Camden is not a major city. It's only 10 sq. miles and under 80,000 people. I don't know why Chicago has become a favorite target recently but it certainly doesn't belong in the company of Detroit and Camden.
Cities are not generally inching toward destruction as you suggest. I study urban planning myself and I can give you an example of a city that most people would put in the same category as Detroit that is currently getting better. Newark, NJ is seeing it's first population increase since the 1950's and the most economic development in the same amount of time. There are over $2 billion of development currently underway in the city. Even cities that appear to be in the most desperate situations are not beyond fixing.
As for the part about New York. When is the last time you were there? Manhattan is nearly all revitalized at this point so much so that property values in Harlem are on the rise. Brooklyn and Queens are gentrifying and developers are just starting to move in on the Bronx. I can't force you to like New York or any cities for that matter and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and entitled to live where you want to live but just know that there is a huge disconnect between what you think cities are like and what they are actually like.
Back in the mid 70's, NYC was on the very brink of bankruptcy and there was a general perception that it was in irreversible decline. They were seriously mistaken. After hitting rock bottom, Koch, a Democrat, led the way to reinvention of the city.
Urban areas, and nations for that matter, do not deteriorate overnight and they certainly don't recover overnight. In 25+/- years, Newark and Detroit will be just fine and other cities will be nearing the bottom.
NYC will always survive no matter who/what is running the place.
Camden is dangerous and trashy. Always BEEN run by liberals, b/c they know they can't fix what's been generationally broken, so it's easy. Get a leg up on the political career and placate/pretend/kiss a few hundred babies who don't know who or where their daddies are, fundraise for a "your parents suck, so spend your free time here" community center for kids.....you're good! Just might be the next POTUS.
So if it were run by conservatives, the city would magically fix itself? How?
You're mistaken. There are charter companies that are going to get the contracts to run the Camden public schools who most definitely are chomping at the bit. They have worked it out beautifully - they will be private and profit-driven, and they will be paid via the public money currently going to public schools, rather than by families paying tuition. Why else would the former charter school lobbyist turned governor appoint a 33 year old venture capitalist to turn around the schools? The end game is not improving student performance or experience, but privatization. Great chunks of money currently going to programs and teacher salary & benefits will instead be funneled to the stakeholders in the charter companies. And anyone who thinks this will somehow magically result inimproved learning experiences for students is deluded. The hand-wringing in the article is for show - nobody cares about the students but their families and many of their teachers.
What was I thinking.
Thanks for sharing a different and more local perspective.
The telltale signs are all around you yet you don't see them ?
Detroit, Chicago, Camden, …..
Some have already fallen while others are struggling and others are inching in that direction.
The neighborhoods I grew up in in NYC are all awash in poverty and high crime today.
Parts of Manhattan gentrified over the years and, as I said, are secluded enclaves of the wealthy.
Most of Chicago is fine and doing better than most other cities, so it seems silly to lump that city in with those three. Also, I am curious which neighborhoods in NYC did you grow up in because poverty and high crime keeps getting pushed further out by higher and higher rents.
I think the point is, all economically failed cities are run by Dems, has something to do with their tax and spend polices.
What about the economically successful cities that are run by Democrats? Do you discredit them because they are not "failed cities?" Also, what about failed Republican run cities and suburbs? Do you not count them because they aren't run by Democrats?
I think the point is, all economically failed cities are run by Dems, has something to do with their tax and spend polices.
So just to be clear, your hypothesis is that if a city adopts liberal leadership and implements tax and spend policies, then that city will suffer economically. Interesting premise. We can actually put that to the test right now using unbiased means. In statistics, there are two types of variables you need to be aware of, an Independent Variable (IV) and a Dependent Variable (DV). The DV will change depending on the IV. In this case the economic deficiency of cities is Dependent on whether or not a Democrat is in office and implements tax and spend policies(IV). If your hypothesis is true then having no democrat in office will result in a better economic outlook. Another way of saying this would be that democrats and their tax policies cause economic deficiency in cities.
When establishing causality there are three tests that need to be passed.
1. time order - First the IV has to happen then we see the DV react accordingly
2. trend or correlation - there needs to be some kind of a relationship between the two variables that suggests that the DV is affected by the IV
3. non-spurious - this means that you have eliminated all other possibilities in regards to something else that could be causing an effect on the DV. Basically you have established that only the IV can make the DV react in a certain way.
Let's put your hypothesis to the test.
1. time order - sure, your theory passes this test. First a democrat comes to office and then the city becomes economically stressed. Yep, that works, onto the next one.
2. trend - this one is a bit iffy. Not all cities under democratic leadership are distressed economically. San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Boston, Portland etc. Whatever you may think of the culture of these cities or the people who live there, they are certainly not economically distressed.
3. non-spurious - This one is a definite fail. We have not even begun to establish that democratic rule is the only thing that could make cities like Detroit economically distressed. There are numerous possibilities that you have not eliminated. Urban renewal, highway construction, and other poor planning decisions of the 20th century have effected cities negatively and had a bad impact on their economies. The rise in the affordability of suburbs combined with the fact that cities had much dirtier industry at the time, in part, fueled the exodus from the cities. You have not eliminated these factors (among others) as possibilities for why some cities remain economically distressed.
Unless a hypothesis can pass all three tests, causality cannot be established. Your hypothesis has passed two at best and the second one is pretty iffy.
Last edited by montycench; 12-19-2013 at 11:16 AM..
But the simple fact is they can't do better, they will never do better.
Read "The Bell Curve" by Richard Herrnstein and Charles A. Murray.
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.
What was I thinking.
