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.
roseba, you make some fine points but I really must take exception to this generalization:
"""I've spoken to people educated in the 30's and 40's. Let's just say they have bad grammar, are politically unaware, not learned on history.""
My mother was educated in the 30's, couldn't finish high school because her family was poor and needed her to work. She was articulate, had excellent grammar, incredible writing and communication skills, was up on politics, and knew quite a bit about history having lived through nearly 90 years of it.
Now , I don't believe that everyone who was educated in the 30's are like my mother and you shouldn't assume the people you know are representative of all those people either.
Besides, I know people right now who "have bad grammar, are politically unaware, not learned on history."" and they have a lot more opportunities than my Mother did.
A good deal of capitalist/conservative moralizing on poverty and wealth seems to center around the idea that "the price/wage that the market produces is essentially just..."
Supply/demand dictates what your wage is, therefore that is what your wage SHOULD be. How does that make sense? It makes sense that people who perform harder labor should be paid more, but why should the arbitrary + unpredictable "free market" be attributed godlike powers of moral judgement?
A good deal of capitalist/conservative moralizing on poverty and wealth seems to center around the idea that "the price/wage that the market produces is essentially just..."
Supply/demand dictates what your wage is, therefore that is what your wage SHOULD be. How does that make sense? It makes sense that people who perform harder labor should be paid more, but why should the arbitrary + unpredictable "free market" be attributed godlike powers of moral judgement?
But open borders and unlimited immigration have disrupted the normal "supply/demand" role. Wages have dropped far below where they should be -- where they would be if it wasn't for the CEO's having unlimited labor pools.
But open borders and unlimited immigration have disrupted the normal "supply/demand" role. Wages have dropped far below where they should be -- where they would be if it wasn't for the CEO's having unlimited labor pools.
A little historical perspective:
Between 1860 and 1930, the percentage of the US population that was foreign-born consistently ran in the 13-15% range. Beginning in the war-torn 1930's and 1940's, that percentage fell as migration became more difficult. Migration rates recovered somewhat in the 1950's and 1960's, but the percentage continued to fall due to increasing rates of death among those who had migrated prior to 1930. By 1970, the percentage sank below 5%, by far the lowest level in our recorded history. It has been increasing since, and is once again just now barely getting back into the 13-15% range that we knew for so long.
I've also spoken with them -- in the 30's they actually did know poverty -- they lived through the Great Depression. They knew what it was like to really scrape by -- not run to the nearest welfare office and get loaded up with food stamps, WIC, heating subsidies, housing subsidies -- like the so-called poor today.
How does that defend the blanket assertion that public education is bad today?
Quote:
Many of them did not have the luxury of sitting in classrooms for 16-20 years before having to work for a living. College in those days was a luxury many could not afford.
There are so many stereotypes based on the outliers in this post... amazing.
To direct on one point.... in my city, anyone could go to college for FREE if one went to a city university. That was 30 years ago. That isn't the case now. Secondly, college is a necessity, like never before.
There are so many stereotypes based on the outliers in this post... amazing.
.
roseba, you make some fine points but I really must take exception to this generalization:
"""I've spoken to people educated in the 30's and 40's. Let's just say they have bad grammar, are politically unaware, not learned on history.""
My mother was educated in the 30's, couldn't finish high school because her family was poor and needed her to work. She was articulate, had excellent grammar, incredible writing and communication skills, was up on politics, and knew quite a bit about history having lived through nearly 90 years of it.
Now , I don't believe that everyone who was educated in the 30's are like my mother and you shouldn't assume the people you know are representative of all those people either.
Besides, I know people right now who "have bad grammar, are politically unaware, not learned on history."" and they have a lot more opportunities than my Mother did.
A good deal of capitalist/conservative moralizing on poverty and wealth seems to center around the idea that "the price/wage that the market produces is essentially just..."
Not "just"; "fair" is a more accurate description of that point of view. The terms are not exactly synonymous, since one encompasses a moral judgement while the other does not necessarily do so. The apt analogy might be "true" and "valid."
Supply/demand dictates what your wage is, therefore that is what your wage SHOULD be. How does that make sense? It makes sense that people who perform harder labor should be paid more, but why should the arbitrary + unpredictable "free market" be attributed godlike powers of moral judgement?
I see your point, but I don't think free market folks think of it as "godlike", unless they are graduates of the theology department of Vulcan University; "unerringly logical" might be a better descriptor...
I've only just latched onto this thread and hope my point has not been aired already but chances are it hasn't.
Many years ago the UK sent petty criminals (nicked a loaf of bread) to the nether regions of Australia as is well known. Mostly these people were poor otherwise why steal bits of bread or carrots or potatoes.
Apparently a present day Aussie would be delighted, no matter how rich his family have become to be able to prove he descended from an early poor convict.
So can it be that the criminals from the UK found a more nurturing environment in Australia, were they allowed a chance perhaps? But better themselves they did.
Many years ago the UK sent petty criminals (nicked a loaf of bread) to the nether regions of Australia as is well known. Mostly these people were poor otherwise why steal bits of bread or carrots or potatoes. Apparently a present day Aussie would be delighted, no matter how rich his family have become to be able to prove he descended from an early poor convict.
They were sending them all here as indentures long before they started sending them off to Australia. Farming in the colonies was quite labor intensive and the demand for cheap labor grew inexorably throughout the colonial period. It wasn't until that demand simply outpaced the supply of British debtors and criminals of the petty and not so petty sort that we began turning to the importation of African slaves. By 1776, at least 50% and perhaps as many as 65% of all immigrants to America had arrived in the colonies in this manner, but we like to trace ourselves back to the Mayflower instead. Things changed of course after the American revolution. It was in the 1780's that things in Australia really started to get going in earnest...
They were sending them all here as indentures long before they started sending them off to Australia. Farming in the colonies was quite labor intensive and the demand for cheap labor grew inexorably throughout the colonial period. It wasn't until that demand simply outpaced the supply of British debtors and criminals of the petty and not so petty sort that we began turning to the importation of African slaves. By 1776, at least 50% and perhaps as many as 65% of all immigrants to America had arrived in the colonies in this manner, but we like to trace ourselves back to the Mayflower instead. Things changed of course after the American revolution. It was in the 1780's that things in Australia really started to get going in earnest...
That is so. One of the least-well-known phenomena of early British immigration patterns was that the "distressed Cavaliers" who were the forebears of the Jeffersons and Madisons needed a whole lot of indentured servants to let them live in the style to which they had grown accustomed in the old country. The "Gentlemen Planters" who formed the ideal for Jefferson's America kept their eye on the ball when it came to importing ready-made carpenters, glaziers, and other "rude mechanicals." Many more of us trace our lineage to indentureds than to aristocrats or Puritans...
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.
