Equality?

[TantricSoul]

If your interested in who is going hungry in America...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601598.html

[DuncanONeil]

If your interested in who is going hungry in America...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601598.html

I suspect articles like this are written for emotional reaction.

The material I originally presented (for Kendal's consumption as well) actually does encompass nearly everyone in the nation as the data comes from the census.

But on to the food issue mentioned here. From the same source, the census.
"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higherincome children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally wellnourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is shortterm. Eightynine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat."

And even the term "often" can be called into question, as can "enough". Understand I am not dismissing but trying to reach a more concrete level of terms and understanding of the issue itself.
As for one of the criteria, skipping meals, I can report that I regular skip meals. Yet would I report that I go hungry? No! And I skip meals EVERY day!

[Kendal]

Weed out those who take advantage and have the ability to hold a job and choose not to.

What does "weed out" mean exactly. Would you provide these people with the minimum needed to live or would you stop all benefits entirely. I have no problem with reducing them to the basics but do not see it as a simple "to pay or not to pay" problem. I would be looking for initiatives to address the underlying problems and I'd also be looking to raise minimum wages so the difference between welfare and wage does make it woth while.

But - as I understand it the problem in America today is not there are lots of jobs but the lazy buggers won't take them. The problem is there are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy. I would not even bother trying to address the problem of the dont-wanna-job when there are millions of do-wanna-jobs out there and not enough jobs for them.

[Kendal]

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"
Not sure if we have wires crossed here. You and steelish seem to be implying that it is the fault of the lazy able bodied man that he has no work. I do not disagree he carries blame but I ask why does this man have such low morale and self esteem having been through the education system. I think we need to address the problem of what made him that way as well as what to do with him now he is that way.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.
Correct. I do not believe in reliance on charity. Government should take care of those in need and charity should provide extra (not minimal) help. I would not want the street full of beggars harrassing people because government does not take care of them. That's what Victorian England was like.

This is a culture difference. Americans pay low wages to service staff such that a tip is not an extra, it is a necessity. I hate American tipping culture. America talks about how much foreign aid it gives. If you look at the stats. America is way down in government aid. BUT the stats are skewed because in other countries it is the governments who give aid whereas in America is mostly through private aid organisation.

Anyhow - as I see it. We cut off the man's welfare to save taxpayer expense. The man is reduced to sending his kids onto the streets to beg to feed his family. The taxpayer can then walk past the starving kid or the man with "will work for food" sign and drop his tax dollar savings into the tin cup.

In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor
I disagree and dont think in a world of millionaires the man with one mercedes when all else have two would meet any definition of poverty. I am talking about the basic necessities to support life. Food, health, shelter. I have said this many times now but for some reason you dont grasp it. Poverty can be defined well enough.

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.
From my side I did not trivialise it - it was trivial before I got to it. If I talk about red herrings do red herrings become part of the discussion or would they be considered off topic.

My views showed that I could earn a way into college.
Yes you could but there are many who could not. I think we should be working to a system where you should not have to. Our views are different.

And that is supposed to prove what?
That kids can learn ethics from school as well as from sweeping floors at home.

I note you left the unions out completely!!
Correct. The topic is equality, equal opportunity and the importance of education in making opportunity more equal. If you want to start a new thread about unions I will be happy to contribute in that thread.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand.
No of course that is impossible. I am not suggesting the CEO does all. I was told when I was at uni that uni teaches you just one thing - how to think. UK and USA are different. In USA college is like job training. You study what you what to do for career and employers hire the people with matching degrees. In the UK the college degree means the person can think and can be taught. It's like officer training and covers principles and methods used in all areas of business and industry. When I hire somebody - I look for degree because I know I can train them. If they do not have the degree I am taking more chance I will be wasting my time. The degree just reduces risk and time for me. Maybe I am wrong - but many others think the same. Ask somebody with HR experience in major corporations.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;
Shelter (can be shared), food, soap, shampoo yes. Haircut maybe. (you can have a free government hair salon and employ a jobless barber). Manicure and pedicure no but nail clippers yes. Soap,shampoo, toilet paper etc are hygene products. If you dont provide the basics because you want to save taxpayers money you wont when my kids get lice in their hair and end up at the doctors using healthcare tax dollars or your kids come home with my kids lice in their hair.

( the problem is you have to provide me with shampoo not give me cash else I spend the cash on beer and my kids get lice)

She already told you such would not be the case!
It does not matter what she told me. The topic is equality not steelish childhood.

You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!
Actually I smiled because you clearly missed the famous "our tommorow for your today" quote and principle. As a result you ended up with a wrong assumption and conclusion. This is an example of why you do not see my point. I do not expect you to share my view but I do hope you understand it.

[DuncanONeil]

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"
Not sure if we have wires crossed here. You and steelish seem to be implying that it is the fault of the lazy able bodied man that he has no work. I do not disagree he carries blame but I ask why does this man have such low morale and self esteem having been through the education system. I think we need to address the problem of what made him that way as well as what to do with him now he is that way.

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem. It is the job of the education system to educate. Further you assume that this person made it through the education system. There is a good chance that what made him that way occurred to him outside of the education system.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.
Correct. I do not believe in reliance on charity. Government should take care of those in need and charity should provide extra (not minimal) help. I would not want the street full of beggars harrassing people because government does not take care of them. That's what Victorian England was like.

In previous Kendal message you espoused charity. Now you appear to forsake charity. Which is it?
It appears here that you favor FORCED charity over and above VOLUNTARY charity.
I must disagree the second is by far the better charity than the former. Especially when the former rapidly becomes viewed as a right!

This is a culture difference. Americans pay low wages to service staff such that a tip is not an extra, it is a necessity. I hate American tipping culture. America talks about how much foreign aid it gives. If you look at the stats. America is way down in government aid. BUT the stats are skewed because in other countries it is the governments who give aid whereas in America is mostly through private aid organisation.

I am sorry but you are going to have to support that claim. It is probable that one can find a data set to support such a claim but how the data is compared is important. It seems entirely possible that we can have a lesser share and yet still provide a greater sum than others.
The only group that have a lower set wage are wait staff and farm workers. With respect to wait staff if you think such results in low wages for them you would in large part be in error.
In Government aid you are in error. of the top ten donor countries the US is on top 40% above second place, in dollars. In the UN the nations agreed to donate 0.7% of GDP, almost all fail in that goal!

Anyhow - as I see it. We cut off the man's welfare to save taxpayer expense. The man is reduced to sending his kids onto the streets to beg to feed his family. The taxpayer can then walk past the starving kid or the man with "will work for food" sign and drop his tax dollar savings into the tin cup.

Proof the "man" is lazy!

In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor
I disagree and dont think in a world of millionaires the man with one mercedes when all else have two would meet any definition of poverty. I am talking about the basic necessities to support life. Food, health, shelter. I have said this many times now but for some reason you dont grasp it. Poverty can be defined well enough.

It does not matter!! Presume your desire comes to fruition. The scenario you posit is in fact a description of a poor man!
I know you are speaking of subsistence level versus an undisclosed level of rich. But you also favor making that subsistence level cease to exist. But it matters not, if they do not have exactly the same as all others they will be deemed poor!! That is indisputable. Yes poverty can be defined, but said definition is flexible. Poverty in the US is not the same as poverty in Botswana! Nor is poverty the same in Luxembourg as in the US, Their per capita income is twice the US

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.
From my side I did not trivialise it - it was trivial before I got to it. If I talk about red herrings do red herrings become part of the discussion or would they be considered off topic.

Depends

My views showed that I could earn a way into college.
Yes you could but there are many who could not. I think we should be working to a system where you should not have to. Our views are different.

Yes our views are different! But you choose to only consider your views just because they are your views. Currently education is free through high school. Such a good job is done in that arena that colleges are forced to offer remedial courses to their students so they can understand the material. I could posit that extension of free schooling would have the same result on a college education it has had on elementary and high school. Also who says everyone needs college?

And that is supposed to prove what?
That kids can learn ethics from school as well as from sweeping floors at home.

But they learn no such thing from schools. In fact in majority they learn that the world OWES them. A living, a life, anything they desire.

I note you left the unions out completely!!
Correct. The topic is equality, equal opportunity and the importance of education in making opportunity more equal. If you want to start a new thread about unions I will be happy to contribute in that thread.

Not a new subject. not a new thread. we were discussing education and the (bad) influence of the teacher unions is appropo.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand.
No of course that is impossible. I am not suggesting the CEO does all. I was told when I was at uni that uni teaches you just one thing - how to think. UK and USA are different. In USA college is like job training. You study what you what to do for career and employers hire the people with matching degrees. In the UK the college degree means the person can think and can be taught. It's like officer training and covers principles and methods used in all areas of business and industry. When I hire somebody - I look for degree because I know I can train them. If they do not have the degree I am taking more chance I will be wasting my time. The degree just reduces risk and time for me. Maybe I am wrong - but many others think the same. Ask somebody with HR experience in major corporations.

That may be your understanding but it is wrong! The job of a student is to learn how to.
So the pare is more important than the person. Wonder how you would react to the Japanese system? Parents bust their butts to get the kid into the right kindergarten, elementary and high school. The kids work their butts off in school. The neighbor kid in Yokohama was routinely up until midnight doing her school work as a preteen. All of these efforts were aimed at getting into a "good" university. For the student that was the goal. For all intents and purposes the university years were a vacation before starting work.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;
Shelter (can be shared), food, soap, shampoo yes. Haircut maybe. (you can have a free government hair salon and employ a jobless barber). Manicure and pedicure no but nail clippers yes. Soap,shampoo, toilet paper etc are hygene products. If you dont provide the basics because you want to save taxpayers money you wont when my kids get lice in their hair and end up at the doctors using healthcare tax dollars or your kids come home with my kids lice in their hair.

That is silly! You are proposing communes. There is no individuality in this. Nor freedom.

( the problem is you have to provide me with shampoo not give me cash else I spend the cash on beer and my kids get lice)

She already told you such would not be the case!
It does not matter what she told me. The topic is equality not steelish childhood.

You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!
Actually I smiled because you clearly missed the famous "our tommorow for your today" quote and principle. As a result you ended up with a wrong assumption and conclusion. This is an example of why you do not see my point. I do not expect you to share my view but I do hope you understand it.

If you were quoting somebody you should have done that rather than make them your words.

[SadisticNature]

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem. It is the job of the education system to educate. Further you assume that this person made it through the education system. There is a good chance that what made him that way occurred to him outside of the education system.

Except that morale and self esteem are huge factors in being successful in education and doing the best one can to insure students have them result in better education. So if they are more successful educators by imparting morale and self esteem then they should do so.

As for people being lazy and staying at home on welfare, the statistics repeatedly show this is a very small percentage of welfare users. The majority of welfare users are single mothers making difficult transitions. The ones who aren't are often there temporarily. Less than 5% of welfare users are abusing the system.

Most people who are on welfare are there because the country has fewer jobs than people who want to work, particularly in a recession. And much of the unfilled jobs require more education and experience than they have.

[SadisticNature]

You blame the teachers unions as any right-wing individual would. The fact that evidence does not support this is irrelevant.

FACT: Teaching unions in the US are weak and ineffective. They are unable to get decent salaries compared to other top countries and have been less successful than their equivalents in other countries at getting progress on just about every issue they've had in bargaining.

FACT: The US education system is weak and ineffective. It is ranked poorly and continues to decline.

FACT: The vast majority of successful educations systems have strong unions and highly paid teachers.

You can't expect to get good science teachers on $20,000-$40,000/year. If one has to do an undergraduate degree to get into a teaching program, and an additional year in a teaching program to be qualified, then at many American Universities you're talking about spending $100,000 and 5 years of your life doing this. Jobs from the BSc average about $44,000 and that's with 1 less year of education and 1 less year of tuition fees. In Canada, with full professional qualifications (BSc, BEd, MSc or MEd, up to date on all professional training requirements plus certain level of job experience) a teacher can earn $80,000/year (lets say about $75,000 US since the exchange rate fluctuates). The entry level position earns comparable to what one can get on a 5 year university education, and thus is competitive in the marketplace, and its more practical to go into teaching because the cost of university is much lower (The University of Toronto is ranked anywhere between 15th and 43rd in the World and costs approximately $6000/year for Canadian students to attend).

Countries like Sweden, Finland and Norway are famous for incredibly high literacy rates (near 100%) and strong education programs, all of them also have strong teachers unions, and good salaries.

The fact is Americans like their low taxes at the expense of good programs, and as long as you continue to do so your education program will be bad. When you try and put money on the problem it happens in effective ways based on political commitments and pork-barrel spending, programs which educators would tell you are doomed from the start, and then when they fail you take it as an excuse not to try. Anything for lower taxes seems to carry the day.

[DuncanONeil]

What does "weed out" mean exactly. Would you provide these people with the minimum needed to live or would you stop all benefits entirely. I have no problem with reducing them to the basics but do not see it as a simple "to pay or not to pay" problem. I would be looking for initiatives to address the underlying problems and I'd also be looking to raise minimum wages so the difference between welfare and wage does make it woth while.

There is a small chance that I have been hearing "initiatives to address the underlying problems" longer than you have been alive. Just what do you think "the underlying problems" are?
Raising the minimum wage does not do what is expected. Any increase in wages does two very basic things not ever considered; raises the cost to the businesses, and forces a concomitant increase in the cost of goods sold. Meaning the increase in minimum wage is a wash.
The difference between minimum wage and welfare is immaterial! When you work you do not remain at the same wage you start your entire career. Heck feqw people even remain at the same job.

But - as I understand it the problem in America today is not there are lots of jobs but the lazy buggers won't take them. The problem is there are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy. I would not even bother trying to address the problem of the dont-wanna-job when there are millions of do-wanna-jobs out there and not enough jobs for them.

"(T)here are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy". Now where did you acquire that little insight into the job market? The economy was sent into a tailspin by regulations put in place forcing those "greedy" bankers to engage in business practices they knew were high rick and a poor business practice. But they had no choice because the other party to the equation has the power of force in their arsenal. When one party to rule setting has the ability to force their favored rules on the agreements what choice dose the party without force have? There is even evidence that the Government corporations involved in banking exacerbated the problem, looked the other way, and cooked the books.
This was not a matter of greed but a matter of trying to survive as a business. It is really getting to VERY old hearing any business that works to make money, based solely on being successful, being painted as greedy. There has to be more to this than is being claimed by these shouters of "GREED! GREED! END THE GREED!" In addition applying this appellation to any and every entity you do not like for some reason actually weakens the argument.

[steelish]

What does "weed out" mean exactly.

By turning the "entitlement" program into an "enablement" program for able-bodied, able-minded people.