giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,158
|
Post by giramomma on Oct 19, 2016 10:55:08 GMT -5
They were brought in through a temp agency so we don't exit interview, they will probably fill out something with them as to why they turned down the assignment and we can get that info. My guess is they were given the scoop on the OT rotation. to be fair, when I was looking at different jobs 1-2 years ago, I found some that really appealed to me. Once I saw that OT or weekend hours were required, I stopped reading and moved on. When you have a young child, working OT or additional weekend hours as needed (especially at short notice) can be problematic. You have to be able to find off-hours child care in addition to the child care you will likely already have during the week. I don't know of many daycare centers that are open very late hours or on weekends, and I can imagine that they would cost more than "business hours" care. The OT money may not be worth the extra cost and hassle. Just my 2 cents. It think it depends on your "village." If you don't have a village, it's hard. Though sometimes, working two jobs and being active in your community bites, it comes back in dividends when you need help from your village. When I was pregnant with #3 and #2 was in the hospital..My village was offering to help watch #1 for us without asking. When you've cultivated a village of 40+ families outside of school/work contacts...that really helps. One of the less well families I worked with..the mom did daycare in her house. She did two shifts a day: one for folks that worked 9-5 and one for folks that worked second shift. I always thought she was pretty savvy for offering second shift. And from what I've heard, she was always booked up for those times. I think it's really hard for some people to think outside the Box and come up with creative solutions to problems. Actually, I see that with my own kids. #1 is really starting to get the hang of problem solving and even has great ideas when I couldn't find a solution. #2 isn't there yet. But, she's awesome at thinking ahead about what needs to be done and then does it. #3 is my best problem solver. It's really crazy to watch her sometimes. I don't have a choice about problem solving. I have to find ways to say "Yes." to pretty much every opportunity. If I say "No" to a student, word of mouth might eventually get around that I'm full for teaching, and then I'll get less clients. I'm not in a position at my dayjob, where I can say "No." Until I get my degree to fill in my weak spots, I'm really only employable where I am. When my kids want to be in activities, I've only said "no." once. And, I know it's easy for me to sit back and say this..because I have a DH that works part time (though, he's working more now.)..Even if he worked full time (which we've been looking at)...we're still going to need to figure out how to make everything work.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on Oct 19, 2016 11:03:42 GMT -5
handouts may be more than what's quoted in Chloe's post, but I don't think they are bankrupting us. Getting ourselves involved in other countries' squabbles and problems probably costs more than the aid we are giving to our own citizens. Probably not, but what I think they are doing is completely changing (or already changed) people's mentality. It has become very very acceptable. I belong to a fairly large homeschooling forum. There are a good number of women there who are given advice of applying for various forms of assistance if they are struggling. I've never once seen anyone say "put your kids to school and get a job" Homeschooling is a choice. Staying home with your children is a choice. And yet, the mentality seems to be that it's perfectly fine to accept govt assistance in those circumstances. This probably qualifies as hijacking this thread, but I have a cousin that homeschooled her kids for years. She started her career with a BS in education. Taught for several years, then as she had more children and her husband started earning good $$, she decided to home school. She has 6 or 7 children. Youngest is a senior in HS this year, and she was already attending Parochial school. My Cousin has been doing a lot of work with the CCD program at the church and networked with the teachers at the catholic school a lot. Their principal (a Nun) was recruited to the public school system. The Nun felt teaching in a low income special needs school district was part of her calling, so she accepted the job. My cousin was one semester short of having her MS and Principal license. The asked my cousin to become the principal b/c of her background and her commitment to Catholic Education. Someone is working with her to do the employee reviews until she is fully certified. My cousin and her husband are doing very well. She does not need to work, and she is 55 already, and probably homeschooled for 15-20 years. She too, accepted the job b/c of an absolute commitment and calling to teach children. Like Oped, I think my cousin was running the homeschool group events, and apparently she was successful in parlaying her experience to FT teaching in a conventional environment.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on Oct 19, 2016 11:08:43 GMT -5
Probably not, but what I think they are doing is completely changing (or already changed) people's mentality. It has become very very acceptable. I belong to a fairly large homeschooling forum. There are a good number of women there who are given advice of applying for various forms of assistance if they are struggling. I've never once seen anyone say "put your kids to school and get a job" Homeschooling is a choice. Staying home with your children is a choice. And yet, the mentality seems to be that it's perfectly fine to accept govt assistance in those circumstances. Ditto. As a taxpayer, I'm against being the funding source for other people's lifestyle decisions. If they are homeschooling 2-3 children (Probably even 1), the cost of providing public school education to those children probably exceeds the value of any assistance they are eligible for.
www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html
Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,009 is spent on public education per student. Significant variation exists across states; New York spends roughly $20,000 per student, while states like Utah and Idaho only spend about a third as much.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 11:18:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 11:13:49 GMT -5
Ditto. As a taxpayer, I'm against being the funding source for other people's lifestyle decisions. If they are homeschooling 2-3 children (Probably even 1), the cost of providing public school education to those children probably exceeds the value of any assistance they are eligible for.
www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html
Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,009 is spent on public education per student. Significant variation exists across states; New York spends roughly $20,000 per student, while states like Utah and Idaho only spend about a third as much.
In MN a lot of that money still follows the child even if they are home schooled or go to private school.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,158
|
Post by giramomma on Oct 19, 2016 11:16:24 GMT -5
LOL... the thing is that it's simple math. If it costs me more to work than to collect benefits, it makes more financial sense to just collect benefits and not work. Yes, but for how long? There's a time limit on TANF (5 years), but you can apply for an extension. Food stamps appear to be different, you get those if you have kids or elderly in your house. If you don't have a multi-generational household, even the food stamps benefit will run out at some point. The TANF benefit in my state is $673. The wait list for low income housing run by my city is 1-3 years. One year, if you are disabled and need a wheelchair. 3 years if you want a 2-3 bedroom apartment. The wait list for section 8 housing has been closed for several years. Now, in my state, if you make 185% of the Federal poverty Level, you qualify for daycare help. OK. So you have a single mom of two kids working a $12/hour job. Gross income would be around 24K a year. When I made that, I think I brought home 1600 or so a month. But, I was withholding more tax because we had to pay more...We'll go ahead and use $1600/month. Daycare would cost 240. So, assuming all things being equal with food stamp amounts and qualifying for Medicaid/CHIP, would it be better to work or not? I'd argue that it would be...Not that I would want to try and support a family of three on 1300/month. But, it's better than 673.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 11:18:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 11:19:09 GMT -5
LOL... the thing is that it's simple math. If it costs me more to work than to collect benefits, it makes more financial sense to just collect benefits and not work. Yes, but for how long? There's a time limit on TANF (5 years), but you can apply for an extension. Food stamps appear to be different, you get those if you have kids or elderly in your house. The TANF benefit in my state is $673. The wait list for low income housing run by my city is 1-3 years. One year, if you are disabled and need a wheelchair. 3 years if you want a 2-3 bedroom apartment. The wait list for section 8 housing has been closed for several years. Now, in my state, if you make 185% of the Federal poverty Level, you qualify for daycare help. OK. So you have a single mom of two kids working a $12/hour job. Gross income would be around 24K a year. When I made that, I think I brought home 1600 or so a month. But, I was withholding more tax because we had to pay more...We'll go ahead and use $1600/month. Daycare would cost 240. So, assuming all things being equal with food stamp amounts and qualifying for Medicaid/CHIP, would it be better to work or not? I'd argue that it would be...Not that I would want to try and support a family of three on 1300/month. But, it's better than 673. Plus at that income you'd still be getting government aid in the form of the Earned Income Credit. Single mom with two kids at 24K is another 5K of tax free money.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 19, 2016 12:04:36 GMT -5
If they are homeschooling 2-3 children (Probably even 1), the cost of providing public school education to those children probably exceeds the value of any assistance they are eligible for.
www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html
Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,009 is spent on public education per student. Significant variation exists across states; New York spends roughly $20,000 per student, while states like Utah and Idaho only spend about a third as much.
In MN a lot of that money still follows the child even if they are home schooled or go to private school. It doesn't matter because that money can't be saved regardless. Student whose parents pull them out to go to a private school or homeschool is rarely a large enough group to actually lower the amount of services the schools provides. Sof if little Joey gets pulled out and home schooled the class he was in goes from 24 to 23 kids. I guess the district could buy a few less books and things but it isn't like a classroom is going to be shut down because of it.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 19, 2016 14:26:22 GMT -5
Ditto. As a taxpayer, I'm against being the funding source for other people's lifestyle decisions. If they are homeschooling 2-3 children (Probably even 1), the cost of providing public school education to those children probably exceeds the value of any assistance they are eligible for.
www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html
Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,009 is spent on public education per student. Significant variation exists across states; New York spends roughly $20,000 per student, while states like Utah and Idaho only spend about a third as much.
We pay HUGE property taxes and most of it goes to our school. I know there is some state funding, but most of $$$ comes from property tax Right now they are talking about building a new school - $40M project - all of it will be coming from the increase to our already HUGE property tax. Which I am paying. While homeschooling my 3 kids. Well, hectically 2 kids since youngest is only 5
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Oct 19, 2016 14:28:54 GMT -5
I've heard nothing but terrifying things about the state of black people living in Chicago. What does it have (or lack) that makes the conditions there much worse than any other major U.S. city? j Drugs (and everything that goes along with that - gangs and crime), Whole neighborhoods that collapsed because of long term gangs/crime/drugs and the poverty that goes with it - no groceries, no stores, empty houses, empty lots -- declining school enrollment and achievement. If you do want a job and you live in one of these places you have to travel to get to it - which might be difficult because you do not have a car or you have to walk thru a 'rival' gang's turf to get to public transportation. Also, remember that Chicago is 3 million people and 230 or so square miles. Not all blacks in Chicago are living in poverty. The drug/poverty problem extends to the suburbs as well. I'm not sure how bad the "poverty" really is since someone's getting money via the drug trade and the black market that exists when people have ill gotten money to spend. The problem is that once you are trapped in this you can't easily move out of it - even though you have the trappings of wealth (without having a legitimate job). Also, even though a handful of people have $$ -there's the circle of people who are slowly going under due to addiction. I have no morally/ethically acceptable idea how to break this cycle or how to keep it from starting again once it's gone. Improving schools is a nice feel good rallying call. But, it ultimately comes down to the kids parents (can/will the parent enforce some simple rules at home - like getting the kid to bed EVERYDAY at the same time or getting the kid to do their homework/read/do something 'school/learning' related when the kid isn't at school) AND the kid being able to safely get to school AND trying to instill in the kid that improving themselves isn't a bad thing (even though their peer group and their family/relatives/daily living situation tells them it is). I'm sorry but I strongly suspect we could provide top of the line schools and educators and give the kids every possible bit of help - and they still would fail (due to the social pressure that they can't/won't succeed or the realization that succeeding means they have to 'turn their back' on the people they love.).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,246
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 19, 2016 16:11:43 GMT -5
... Right now they are talking about building a new school - $40M project - all of it will be coming from the increase to our already HUGE property tax. Which I am paying. While homeschooling my 3 kids. ... The fact you are homeschooling your kids is irrelevant. You have neighbors who are paying the property taxes with no kids of school age. School taxes are paid by the public to pay for the public schools.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 11:18:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 16:29:04 GMT -5
I am always surprised at some of the "facts" that come out in these discussions like 17% graduation rates in Alabama. See www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/15_high_schools_with_the_worst.htmlLowest graduation rates in Alabama: S.R. Butler High School (Huntsville City)– 62 percent Gaylesville High School (Cherokee County)– 69 percent Lanier Senior High School (Montgomery Public Schools)– 71 percent Bessemer City High School (Bessemer City) – 72 percent Woodlawn High School Magnet (Birmingham City School)– 72 percent Lee High School Montgomery (Montgomery Public Schools)– 75 percent Now 62% isn't great but it is better than 17%. Poverty definitely has an impact but for all of Alabama last year, the black or African graduation rate was 87% . Actually that is far better than Chicago where African Americans have an overall graduation rate of about 67% with males less than 60% in a highly racially segregated school system so perhaps the problems are far greater in the north than the south. Chicago's answer to the problem for several years was to falsify the graduation rate until the system got caught so I hope the Alabama numbers are close to accurate. I don't mind admitting that the data I was thinking about is old. I don't teach in this type of school system. Fortunately, the state came up with a new way to calculate graduation rates that has drastically improved the statistics. It's hard to find the old data because I am too busy to dig through all the stuff, but this quote will give you some idea of what I am referring to. It is from 2000, which seems ages ago to you guys, but not to me. Here's the source: link Like I said, though, the SDE figured out a way to improve our statistics. Removing the graduation exam (based on an eighth-grade level) certainly helped. We now require students to take the ACT (and the state pays for it). No score is required for graduation, however. We do have benchmarks and school report cards, but it doesn't affect graduation rate. The source I linked is a really good discussion of the relationship between poverty and education in Alabama. Change comes slowly here, trust me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 11:18:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 16:54:03 GMT -5
@marinauser, just to demonstrate how "right" you are and how "wrong" my "facts" are . . . The headline at al.com was that Alabama has catapulted over the rest of you guys and now has the third highest graduation rate in the country! That's right! Only Iowa and New Jersey rank higher. Statistics never lie, of course. Here's the link to that "fact." link
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Oct 19, 2016 16:54:11 GMT -5
I am always surprised at some of the "facts" that come out in these discussions like 17% graduation rates in Alabama. See www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/15_high_schools_with_the_worst.htmlLowest graduation rates in Alabama: S.R. Butler High School (Huntsville City)– 62 percent Gaylesville High School (Cherokee County)– 69 percent Lanier Senior High School (Montgomery Public Schools)– 71 percent Bessemer City High School (Bessemer City) – 72 percent Woodlawn High School Magnet (Birmingham City School)– 72 percent Lee High School Montgomery (Montgomery Public Schools)– 75 percent Now 62% isn't great but it is better than 17%. Poverty definitely has an impact but for all of Alabama last year, the black or African graduation rate was 87% . Actually that is far better than Chicago where African Americans have an overall graduation rate of about 67% with males less than 60% in a highly racially segregated school system so perhaps the problems are far greater in the north than the south. Chicago's answer to the problem for several years was to falsify the graduation rate until the system got caught so I hope the Alabama numbers are close to accurate. I've heard nothing but terrifying things about the state of black people living in Chicago. What does it have (or lack) that makes the conditions there much worse than any other major U.S. city? I don't know about that, my cousin and his wife lives in the city of Chicago and they are living a Fabulous life that I envy sometimes. They just spend 3 weeks in Europe with their group of friends ....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,246
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 19, 2016 17:08:45 GMT -5
I've heard nothing but terrifying things about the state of black people living in Chicago. What does it have (or lack) that makes the conditions there much worse than any other major U.S. city? I don't know about that, my cousin and his wife lives in the city of Chicago and they are living a Fabulous life that I envy sometimes. They just spend 3 weeks in Europe with their group of friends .... Wait! You aren't saying that all black people aren't ...
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,784
|
Post by thyme4change on Oct 19, 2016 18:08:19 GMT -5
I don't know about that, my cousin and his wife lives in the city of Chicago and they are living a Fabulous life that I envy sometimes. They just spend 3 weeks in Europe with their group of friends .... Wait! You aren't saying that all black people aren't ... That sounds like everything we know about poverty is wrong!
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 19, 2016 18:25:38 GMT -5
... Right now they are talking about building a new school - $40M project - all of it will be coming from the increase to our already HUGE property tax. Which I am paying. While homeschooling my 3 kids. ... The fact you are homeschooling your kids is irrelevant. You have neighbors who are paying the property taxes with no kids of school age. School taxes are paid by the public to pay for the public schools.Wow!! I had no idea!
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 19, 2016 19:48:32 GMT -5
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Oct 19, 2016 22:27:19 GMT -5
Ditto. As a taxpayer, I'm against being the funding source for other people's lifestyle decisions. If they are homeschooling 2-3 children (Probably even 1), the cost of providing public school education to those children probably exceeds the value of any assistance they are eligible for.
www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html
Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,009 is spent on public education per student. Significant variation exists across states; New York spends roughly $20,000 per student, while states like Utah and Idaho only spend about a third as much.
My reference wasn't exclusive to people deciding to home school, then applying for a bunch of social programs they now qualify for. It was a broader comment. Which would include my cousin, who decided to get pregnant, leave her job, and apply for every low income program that was offered. The new, energy efficient windows for the charming bungalow she bought a couple of years earlier. The free painting of the house and garage for low income homeowners. The insulation upgrade for low income residents. She was low income by choice. Yet, the taxpayers provided at least $10K in home improvements and who knows what else in just a single year. I have a philosophical problem with that type of behavior.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 22, 2016 16:07:11 GMT -5
When you give anyone anything it does more harm than good.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Oct 23, 2016 6:36:03 GMT -5
This article is based on this list of 10 myths about poverty:
1. Single moms are the problem. Only 9 percent of low-income, urban moms have been single throughout their child's first five years. Thirty-five percent were married to, or in a relationship with, the child's father for that entire time.*
2. Absent dads are the problem. Sixty percent of low-income dads see at least one of their children daily. Another 16 percent see their children weekly.*
3. Black dads are the problem. Among men who don't live with their children, black fathers are more likely than white or Hispanic dads to have a daily presence in their kids' lives.
4. Poor people are lazy. In 2004, there was at least one adult with a job in 60 percent of families on food stamps that had both kids and a nondisabled, working-age adult.
5. If you're not officially poor, you're doing okay. The federal poverty line for a family of two parents and two children in 2012 was $23,283. Basic needs cost at least twice that in 615 of America's cities and regions.
6. Go to college, get out of poverty. In 2012, about 1.1 million people who made less than $25,000 a year, worked full time, and were heads of household had a bachelor's degree.**
7. We're winning the war on poverty. The number of households with children living on less than $2 a day per person has grown 160 percent since 1996, to 1.65 million families in 2011.
8. The days of old ladies eating cat food are over. The share of elderly single women living in extreme poverty jumped 31 percent from 2011 to 2012.
9. The homeless are drunk street people. One in 45 kids in the United States experiences homelessness each year. In New York City alone, 22,000 children are homeless.
10. Handouts are bankrupting us. In 2012, total welfare funding was 0.47 percent of the federal budget.
*Source: Analysis by Dr. Laura Tach at Cornell University. I'm not sure some of those are myths, I've never heard absent dads are a factor for poverty for example. It might be a factor in the relationship between the child and dad, but child support would be the financial aspect of the situation not the frequency of visits.#8 - I think this one is spot on - poverty hits the elderly especially hard, both men and women. My grandparents were from a generation who was very distrustful of stocks/banks/etc and consequently lived off of social security once their savings ran out, and it's not really a lot to live on. I'm sure there are a lot of others in that same situation. #9 - I believed that one at one point - grew up in a rural area so didn't have any experience with homeless people. I've seen some here that definitely look like they have or had an addiction to either drugs or alcohol, but the majority don't and also don't seem to have a mental illness. I also don't think everyone holding a "I'm homeless and hungry" sign is homeless or hungry either, it's just too profitable of a job to go find work with an employer. #10 - those numbers are way off, it's more like 10%. Handouts aren't solely bankrupting us as a nation, but spending more than we take in is...and welfare funding is a part of the equation. I think absent fathers and divorce is a huge factor. It isn't simply child support. A father who is living in the home with his wife and children is fully invested in the family structure. So, he is 100% invested, not just sending a monthly check for support. That is a huge difference. The cost of people maintaining 2 households is very expensive. So, what could have been done by a married couple versus one person with a child is often a stark contrast.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 23, 2016 6:48:53 GMT -5
Of course when you make it more advantageous to not be married and have children, that's the choice that will be made. Not what is in the best interest of the child by any means.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Oct 24, 2016 9:40:42 GMT -5
Amen. Single motherhood puts you way behind the curve except in rare instances (a coworker who had a high-power career and had a baby with a donor at age 40, niece who had one at 19 but got EXTENSIVE support from her parents and eventually married an architect and got credentials to work as a radiation therapist). Get pregnant, quit HS, try and support a baby on what the government doles out, have one or two more... it's very hard to recover from that. Not impossible, but very hard. I became a single mom in my 40s making a very good salary in a lcola. I honestly can't imagine how I would have done this making the salary I did in my 20s. I have the education and career that can support my children and me in a comfortable lifestyle. I can't imagine if I had a child by myself in my early 20s or if I hadn't worked and built a career prior to my divorce.
Outside of true disabilities we all have the ability to dig ourselves out of poverty. What separates most of us is the desire to do it. It is a lot of work but it can be done.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Oct 24, 2016 9:41:40 GMT -5
I have worked in the poor sections of town for over 31 years. I do disagree with some of the statistics quoted. I have seen way too much of what they say doesn't exist. There basically is no government incentive to get off the system. I've lived it and I disagree with a lot of the statistics quoted.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Oct 24, 2016 9:45:44 GMT -5
I think the advent of legal abortion may be a major factor in why people consider a pregnancy to be the woman's responsibility. Men can't force a woman to continue or terminate a pregnancy so they may feel more justified in washing their hands of it. Marriage makes men legally responsible for any children produced although it can be difficult to enforce. You beat me to it. At the end of the day, it is 100% up to the women whether or not she has a baby. A man can want her to terminate the pregnancy but if she wants the baby she gets to keep the baby.
We can't have it both ways. Women scream "my body, my rights"....well, you want to be solely responsible for deciding whether or not a life comes into this world then don't bitch when 100% of the responsibility of preventing that life (whether it is bc or abortion) falls on you.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 24, 2016 9:56:25 GMT -5
I finished reading "Living on $2 a day" and the authors came to some interesting conclusions, contrary to mine. They stated that because cash welfare has so little support in the U.S. it's a terrible idea. That any form of social safety net needs broad public support, not only to keep the funding going but also for the dignity of the participants. In that context they applaud the expansion of EITC and say that we should focus on getting these families to work more. They suggested a mix of solutions including subsidizing employers to take a risk on employees, laws to ensure minimum hours worked for employees to have a more stable paycheck, minimum wage increase to $10, having a gov't administered EF for impoverished families so if they have the occasional emergency that makes it difficult to go to work (sick child, run out of gas) they have some recourse, subsidized housing because it's impossible to build cheap housing for profit. They did that in Baltimore city. Made zero difference. Employers were getting major credits for hiring within the community and for staying in the community. They couldn't find people who were 1) willing to work 2) would actually show up when they were suppose to. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it (although I've done no studies and am certainly not as smart as all those writers and economists and such) - before handing out money or coming up with financial solutions - WE NEED TO CHANGE THE MINDSET! And that's no easy task when we are in a generational poverty/assistance loop. Many people feel perfectly justified getting assistance and that should be changed. Even people on this board think that it's OK for certain % of healthy population not to contribute to society. And that should be changed. No creative solutions will be successful until we change people's mindset.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 25, 2016 9:07:18 GMT -5
I finished reading "Living on $2 a day" and the authors came to some interesting conclusions, contrary to mine. They stated that because cash welfare has so little support in the U.S. it's a terrible idea. That any form of social safety net needs broad public support, not only to keep the funding going but also for the dignity of the participants. In that context they applaud the expansion of EITC and say that we should focus on getting these families to work more. They suggested a mix of solutions including subsidizing employers to take a risk on employees, laws to ensure minimum hours worked for employees to have a more stable paycheck, minimum wage increase to $10, having a gov't administered EF for impoverished families so if they have the occasional emergency that makes it difficult to go to work (sick child, run out of gas) they have some recourse, subsidized housing because it's impossible to build cheap housing for profit. They did that in Baltimore city. Made zero difference. Employers were getting major credits for hiring within the community and for staying in the community. They couldn't find people who were 1) willing to work 2) would actually show up when they were suppose to. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it (although I've done no studies and am certainly not as smart as all those writers and economists and such) - before handing out money or coming up with financial solutions - WE NEED TO CHANGE THE MINDSET! And that's no easy task when we are in a generational poverty/assistance loop. Many people feel perfectly justified getting assistance and that should be changed. Even people on this board think that it's OK for certain % of healthy population not to contribute to society. And that should be changed. No creative solutions will be successful until we change people's mindset. The widely held theory is all that is a choice but IMO there is a lot less actual choice than we think. Lead has been a problem in the inner cities for decades. And it is unbelievably cruel and fickle ravaging the people in one home while being able to leave the homes around it untouched. It can even be one person and not the others in the house depending on where it comes from and what ages. I know these might not be people here's cut of tea as far as types of pieces or political lean but trust me they are worth the read! It is so sad to think your address when your kids were born could completely predetermine their entire lives and not for the better.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 25, 2016 9:38:50 GMT -5
Again it is a longish article but a good one.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2016 9:58:43 GMT -5
The same correlation can be shown between abortion and crime as well. That hypothesis - that crime rates are tied to the availability of abortion - was one of the main points in Freakonomics.
I'm not arguing lead isn't poisonous or that it isn't a factor, just pointing out that there are so many factors involved in most of these cases that it's tough to see that lead is the primary one. Even in the Freddie Gray example, how the heck would you ever know if his issues were due to the lead or the fact that he was born a premature twin to a heroin addict that continued to have even more children she couldn't support or nurture? Was it the lead in his tiny system or the heroin? Was it a physical poison or the toxic environment? Who knows?
I think pointing at lead is appealing because it's something we feel the government could "do something" about even if the addicted, neglectful parents don't choose to do anything, but I'm extremely skeptical that removing all lead will significantly decrease future poverty or crime. The environmental and family factors are too ingrained and powerful an influence.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,158
|
Post by giramomma on Oct 25, 2016 10:10:59 GMT -5
I'm going to completely change the conversation in an awkward way.
I learned something interesting my county is doing, yesterday..via our neighborhood association. Apparently, there's an "eviction prevention program." They set aside 50K to help folks in need. The program is supposed to help people with large expenses, like fixing cars, etc so they can still get to work..(Our county is half urban, half rural with a population of 500K). They said they helped 200 families, including 400 children to stay in their homes.
I wish I knew more about it. I also really like the idea of these sorts of programs...next year, they are setting aside 100K to help families in need.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2016 10:22:49 GMT -5
I'm going to completely change the conversation in an awkward way. I learned something interesting my county is doing, yesterday..via our neighborhood association. Apparently, there's an "eviction prevention program." They set aside 50K to help folks in need. The program is supposed to help people with large expenses, like fixing cars, etc so they can still get to work..(Our county is half urban, half rural with a population of 500K). They said they helped 200 families, including 400 children to stay in their homes. I wish I knew more about it. I also really like the idea of these sorts of programs...next year, they are setting aside 100K to help families in need. In most communities churches do this, it's just not a formal, publicized, tax funded program. And the churches do it for people who are not necessarily members of any particular church, too. I know this through my involvement in foster care volunteering but also because it's something widely discussed in Landlord forums and associations. Landlords will even go directly to churches to ask them for this type of temporary help for a tenant that has what appears to be a one-time large expense.
|
|