America’s creeping Serrata

[Alan]

haha.

You may of course be 100% correct, and me 100% wrong. I have always tended to follow my own determinations.

This is a different place, different time. What chances would you give Mrs. Thatcher of being elected president in the US today? And thinking about it, the UK looks a bit like a boomerang lately.1974 _2014. Not a straight line up, though I am giving a cherry picked starting point. Democratic countries have trouble dealing with prosperity, see Hyman Minsky on this.

Ha

I guess, having just come back from another great vacation, I am feeling even more happy and optimistic than usual.

I think it's always easy to say that "it was different there", or "this time it will be different", or "history is no predictor of the future", but I guess that I simply believe that "cometh the hour, cometh the man" is never just wishful thinking.

 

[HFWR]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

 

[ls99]

Interesting opinions.

Mine is: in all societies it is easier to reach and get the good stuff from the top shelf if one is born into the Brahmin caste. If born an untouchable, still can become rich and/or educated yet not be accepted into high society.

Life and success is what you make it. Whining about the system is a diversion of dubious benefit. But does help pass the time.

If climbing the social/wealth ladder is important, it is imperative to discover who is moving the rungs and why, as one tries to climb said ladder. Kind of like playing cards, if you can't figure out who the patsy is, look in the mirror.

Now back to my regularly scheduled trip to the mancave and ignore the world.

 

[Alan]

Now back to my regularly scheduled trip to the mancave and ignore the world.

Exactly

We've just spent a week in Big Bend, TX, with no newspapers, TV, Internet or cell phone. It was great, and we'll be doing a similar thing the week of the election in Death Valley.

 

[photoguy]

After growing up in canada and then living in the US for the past 15 years or so, I think the dramatically lower social mobility in the US is due primarily to (1) more extreme poverty and (2) less access to better quality education for the poor (at all levels).

 

[marko]

After growing up in canada and then living in the US for the past 15 years or so, I think the dramatically lower social mobility in the US is due primarily to (1) more extreme poverty and (2) less access to better quality education for the poor (at all levels).

You might be onto something: going from "non-working poor" to "working poor" is not rewarded; in fact, the system discourages it.

Unless you can jump from non-working poor directly to middle class, why be upwardly mobile when crossing that bridge only sends you backward? Collateral damage of the "War on Poverty".

The extreme poor and extreme rich avoid the "work harder, get less" aspect.

 

[explanade]

I think stats like black and Hispanic enrollment and/or graduation from universities has declined from peaks decades ago.

Cost of university education is increasing out of reach for more and more people and then we have the looming problems with college loans.

At the same time, with globalization, Americans are told they must get skills (from universities) to improve their job/career prospects, as those without college degrees have suffered greater since the financial crisis than those with degrees.

Jobs for high school grads which can provide a middle-class standard of living also seem to be on the decline. In the '60s, the biggest employer was GM and a GM factory worker could not only raise a family only with his wages, but also send kids to college.

Now, the biggest employer is Wal Mart.

 

[FUEGO]

After growing up in canada and then living in the US for the past 15 years or so, I think the dramatically lower social mobility in the US is due primarily to (1) more extreme poverty and (2) less access to better quality education for the poor (at all levels).

Regarding your second point about education opportunity for the poor - I think that is a valid criticism. I recently read in The Economist that the US is somewhat unique in the developed world due to our localized funding of education. Apparently the US plus 2 other countries out of OECD developed nations fund education in this manner. Presumably the remainder fund it primarily from a federal pot of money so per pupil spending is more equal.

Here's a link to some charts that summarize US education spending: Charts-- 10 Facts About K-12 Education Funding

As you can see the federal government's slice of education spending is tiny compared to the parts paid by state and local governments (the latter two groups pay in roughly equal parts).

The result is that states with lower wealth/income levels (deep south anyone?) simply have less resources at the state level than wealthier states (New England and CA for example). The wealth effect on education funding is even more magnified when you zoom down one more level to the local school districts. Many regions have fairly localized school districts where the inner city may be the "City School District" and get funded by the blighted property tax base and/or sales tax and the "County School District" may have much wealthier tax base (property and sales) that can better fund education.

Pile up all the spending and you get wealthy school districts in wealthy states having plenty of money and resources to lavish on students, and poor school districts in poor states that can barely keep warm adult bodies in the classroom to keep the students in line. Some argue that more spending isn't the answer, but a more level spending plan might be the answer. But it is a complicated issue with many other moving parts. Demographics in some school districts make high performance a high hurdle, even if you throw all the money in the world at the district.

On a personal level, I happen to live in a relatively wealthy (for the southeastern US) but very large school district. My kids ended up getting the privilege of attending a school with extremely high minority and low income enrollment (traditional measures of challenging populations in education policy). Not surprisingly the test scores are in the bottom percentile or two in the district. To remedy that, the school receives tons of federal Title 1 / No Child Left Behind money (much from competitive grants). To the tune of many many thousands of dollars per pupil per year (on top of the $10k+ the school district spends on each pupil each year). So far the results have been great - test scores are going up, assessments are improving. Almost all the newly enrolled kindergarten class chose to come to the school from elsewhere due to the resources, teacher quality (they pay for performance for teachers), and other aspects of the school.

 

[haha]

In what sense is this not a political thread? Why is it acceptable, when other "political" threads get shut down almost immediately?

Look at the title of the thread.

Ha

 

[HFWR]

You might be onto something: going from "non-working poor" to "working poor" is not rewarded; in fact, the system discourages it.

Unless you can jump from non-working poor directly to middle class, why be upwardly mobile when crossing that bridge only sends you backward? Collateral damage of the "War on Poverty".

The extreme poor and extreme rich avoid the "work harder, get less" aspect.

Lots of complaints about the number of folks who don't pay FIT, but seems to me it's better to pay someone to work (EIC) that penalize them for working, i.e. losing their TANF (welfare) benefits.

I think stats like black and Hispanic enrollment and/or graduation from universities has declined from peaks decades ago.

Cost of university education is increasing out of reach for more and more people and then we have the looming problems with college loans.

At the same time, with globalization, Americans are told they must get skills (from universities) to improve their job/career prospects, as those without college degrees have suffered greater since the financial crisis than those with degrees.

Jobs for high school grads which can provide a middle-class standard of living also seem to be on the decline. In the '60s, the biggest employer was GM and a GM factory worker could not only raise a family only with his wages, but also send kids to college.

Now, the biggest employer is Wal Mart.

Too many college degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on...

25 college majors with the highest unemployment rates - CBS News

StudentsReview: Unemployment rates by Major

And, oddly enough...

 

[photoguy]

Regarding your second point about education opportunity for the poor - I think that is a valid criticism. I recently read in The Economist that the US is somewhat unique in the developed world due to our localized funding of education.

My friend just purchased a house in very good school district in the SF Bay area. I was shocked to learned that he is expected to "donate" $1200 per student to the school board for a public school. Otherwise, the students won't get art, music, or physical education classes. In fact, their kids' music teacher was hired from another district which had to let her go due to lack of funds.

Now, this is a wealthy district (avg home price is north of 700K) so I expect most families will pay the donation. But I can't imagine how poorer school districts are able to cope.

 

[FUEGO]

My friend just purchased a house in very good school district in the SF Bay area. I was shocked to learned that he is expected to "donate" $1200 per student to the school board for a public school. Otherwise, the students won't get art, music, or physical education classes. In fact, their kids' music teacher was hired from another district which had to let her go due to lack of funds.

Now, this is a wealthy district (avg home price is north of 700K) so I expect most families will pay the donation. But I can't imagine how poorer school districts are able to cope.

Wow - $1200? Per student for his own kids or for "the sake of the common good"? Our school asks for donations of things like pencils, copying paper, bleach wipes, hand sanitizer, kleenexes, itunes cards for ipad/ipod apps, etc. Things you would assume schools would plan for in their operating budgets but apparently don't. I doubt we donate more than $100 of supplies per year per kid though. Although we didn't have a music teacher until this week (due to budget cuts) and we are in the 8th week of school.

At my kids' school, where 80-90% of the students are "low income" (defined in education policy as receiving free or reduced price lunch), I doubt you would see a whole lot of families donating $1200 per student.

 

[MasterBlaster]

And the moral of the NYTimes story...

Unless liberal policies are followed, as are touted via the Times, then so goes the country to a destitue future.

It's all there in black and white. Amd you can read it in the Times.

 

[MichaelB]

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube

Thanks to all for participating