I don't remember what I argued with them about, that was 10 years ago... I just remember a few teachers I had that made negative comments about me because of activities I chose to participate in outside of school... I mean, what business does a middle school teacher have berating a kid because he/she chooses to hunt? That didn't help and it was more than one teacher, nothing happened when I went to the principal about it eaither, I just had to deal with these PETA freaks harassing me until the semester was over.


I'm more worried about the indoctrination that elementary school kids get, not high school age kids.

whats wrong with me choosing to send my kids to a non public school if i choose to?

3/6/2007 10:06:56 AM

Quote :

"whats wrong with me choosing to send my kids to a non public school if i choose to?"

Nothing, other than depriving them from experiencing and learning from situations where people harass them because of their beliefs. It's a life lesson that can't be avoided, might as well learn it young so as to not have a harder time dealing with it when they are older.

3/6/2007 10:13:11 AM

Quote :

"^AHA, so you want her to find people who have extra space and would let her stay there rent-free while she finds a job and a new place to live so that after she gets settled on her own, they'll watch her kids while she's at work. Yes, this goes on; famiyl and friends help one another out all the time. But to expect that everybody has that option is ridiculous. Get your head out your ass."

I can't think of a single family member that wouldn't do something similar for me if I were in a bad situation, and I'm not even that close to my family. But it doesn't have to be all of that at all. Even a reduced rent would improve her situation vastly. As far as extra space goes, everyone has a living room. Sure it's not the best of conditions but again, we're talking her children's health here and again, the other option is no care for the children. And again, it doesn't have to be permanent (in fact it shouldn't be). Are you seriously suggesting that a woman with a clean background, at least 6 years work experience and good references couldn't find a job that will pay her close to $10 / hour with little trouble?

I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that this woman has NO ONE that she knows that would put her up for a bit or take care of her kids for a bit while she works her way into a better position. Again, she doesn't need them to take care of her completely. But every little bit counts

Quote :

"Nothing, other than depriving them from experiencing and learning from situations where people harass them because of their beliefs. It's a life lesson that can't be avoided, might as well learn it young so as to not have a harder time dealing with it when they are older."

Because private schools are free from harrasment? And don't you think it would be better if people taught their children that harrasing people because of their beliefs or situation was abnormal and rude rather than expected?

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : adsf]

3/6/2007 10:17:25 AM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: whats wrong with me choosing to send my kids to a non public school if i choose to?"

What makes you think a private school teacher is going to be any better than a public school teacher? Most of them get paid less than public school teachers.

And there's nothing wrong with your choosing to send your kids a to non public school. It's your belief that private is always better that I'm arguing with, and that public schools attempt to indocrtinate children and private schools do not. And, yes, you will be depriving your child of valuable life experience, but whatever, that's not an issue...most parents deprive their children of life experience (for example, mine never dropped me off in Chavis Heights for a day or or took me to a Klan rally or a concert where everyone was tripping or even just a regular bar to watch a game, for that matter...)

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that this woman has NO ONE that she knows that would put her up for a bit or take care of her kids for a bit while she works her way into a better position. Again, she doesn't need them to take care of her completely. But every little bit counts"

So you're admitting that you don't understand poverty at all?

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM. Reason : sss]

3/6/2007 10:19:04 AM

^^hahaha


yeah, i guess there's no good answer to my question

you send your kids to public schools, I'll send mine to private schools

^ haha what??? no, the private school teachers I know make more than public school teachers

and sorry, elementary educators turn kids into little programmed wimps now

all of this "don't hurt little johnnys feelings" crap


your parents didn't drop you off at chavis heights or take you to any of those other places because they cared about your well being, they were being well... parents

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : ..]

3/6/2007 10:19:21 AM

^^^Certainly not. I'm just saying sending your kids to a different school to avoid potential harassment isn't the best of ideas. I guess my comment applies more to home schooling - since we all get mired in the details around here.

Quote :

"And don't you think it would be better if people taught their children that harrasing people because of their beliefs or situation was abnormal and rude rather than expected?"

Way to read way more into it than what I said...

Sure it's rude. But name one person that has made it through life without being harassed... hence it's expected.


[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:23 AM. Reason : -]

3/6/2007 10:19:54 AM

I'm not worried about my kids getting harassed by other kids

kids are kids and they make fun of each other, thats life

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM. Reason : I don't have time for home schooling, nor would I want to]

3/6/2007 10:22:34 AM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: ^ haha what??? no, the private school teachers I know make more than public school teachers"

Quote :

"Myth: Private school teachers make less than their colleagues in public schools. As with most things, that's not necessarily true. A lot depends on the kind of the school we are talking about. For example, a third grade teacher in a parochial school will make about 10-15% less than her counterpart in a public school. Why? Parochial school budgets are traditionally the slimmest in the business because their tuitions are among the lowest in the business. Now, put that same third grade teacher in a Montessori school and the salary gap closes significantly. Why? Montessori schools typically charge what the market will bear. Highly qualified teachers with terminal degrees working at the top prep schools will make very close to what their colleagues in public education make. Ditto for administrators."

http://privateschool.about.com/cs/employment/a/advantages_4.htm

In most instances, private school teachers make less. In some circumstances they make "very close" to what public school teachers make, and rarely, they make more.

PWNT

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: and sorry, elementary educators turn kids into little programmed wimps now"

I agree that the culture of self-esteem is an issue. I still see no evidence that public elementaries are somehow more guilty of this than private elementaries.

3/6/2007 10:33:39 AM

why do shout out "pwnt" like I give a fuck

the small handfull of private school instructors I know make more than the public school instructors I know.. it isn't much, but it's more


OMFG, "PWNT"

you say some lame shit sometimes bridget, but the dork ass "pwnt" stuff is by far the lamest shit I've seen you type... and serves no purpose in the soapbox other than to be an obnoxious distraction.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:42 AM. Reason : really, think about it, "pwnt", don't be a dork]

3/6/2007 10:42:06 AM

Quote :

"So you're admitting that you don't understand poverty at all? "

So poverty means you are cut off from society completely with no one to help or assist you in any way shape or form except for the government? Poverty means that your family turns their back on you? Poverty means you have no friends? Poverty means you have no co-workers? Poverty means the charities and churches turn you away?

If so, then we have bigger problems than some poor mothers.

3/6/2007 10:42:52 AM

^No, but many people in poverty don't have economically sound friends and family members.

You keep saying that you know your family members would help you out. What if you didn't have them? Would you seek out your second cousin that you've never met because he's the one guy in your family who went to college and has a job that pays over $30,000/year?

"No, we can't just get somebody to fill in... Everybody here works, Baby."

-Johnny Castle, Dirty Dancing

LOL

3/6/2007 11:22:20 AM

Quote :

"you say some lame shit sometimes bridget, but the dork ass "pwnt" stuff is by far the lamest shit I've seen you type... and serves no purpose in the soapbox other than to be an obnoxious distraction. [Edited on March 6, 2007 at 10:42 AM. Reason : really, think about it, "pwnt", don't be a dork]"

I think it's so dorky it's funny. It's fun to type. I'm silly!

You laughed at me like I was stupid for thinking private school teachers made less than public school teachers. I showed you you were wrong, and now you're all bothered that I use this dorky word.

3/6/2007 11:32:09 AM

How about we do voluntary taxes to help poor people. Bridget, would you participate?

3/6/2007 11:40:04 AM

I decided to stop responding to you, but I already did once so...

Yes, I would participate.

And we should publish the names of all the people who chose not to participate the way we publish the names of people who don't pay taxes now.

3/6/2007 12:15:21 PM

Bridget you DO understand that when you say something like "free healthcare" or "free daycare"...that theres nothing "free" about those, right?

3/6/2007 12:22:19 PM

Yes. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I get it.

"Free" is easier to type than subsidized by the public"...

I kinda assume you guys know what I mean by "free."

3/6/2007 12:29:31 PM

Quote :

"No, but many people in poverty don't have economically sound friends and family members. "

They don't have to be economically sound, just stable enough to help. Two people willing to work and live together and help each other out both making $24k / year is still a 48k/year household and can cut individual living expenses by almost half.

Quote :

"You keep saying that you know your family members would help you out. What if you didn't have them? Would you seek out your second cousin that you've never met because he's the one guy in your family who went to college and has a job that pays over $30,000/year? "

If it means the life of my children, you're damn right I would. A gal I grew up with was born when her mother was 18. Her mother followed a boyfriend around until he got abusive and then ran off. The boyfriend was in the military, was shipped off to holand and went AWOL so very little hope of child support. You know what happened? Her mother called up the ex's parents and told them what had happened and asked for a place to stay and some help with her newborn daughter while she got back on her feet. They took her in and are still part of her family to this day. There is no excuse not to try everything and anything if it means a better life for your child.

3/6/2007 3:29:16 PM

Let's just bring back debtors prisons.

3/6/2007 7:23:39 PM

Quote :

"I've stopped in places in NC where the entire town is depressed in poverty, and I have no idea what to do there. Towns like that are included in the rare instances that I think economics folks can be of some help."

I do. Eliminate the minimum wage and reduce taxes. Regional Poverty is the result of business imbalances (all the local businesses competed poorly on the national level and thus went bankrupt, leaving the workers unemployed). In a free market, such imbalances are corrected by allowing the local wages to fall in response to unemployment, drawing sucessful businesses to the area in search of low wages.

However, a minimum wage prevents local wages from falling and thus eliminates the incentive for businesses to correct this imbalance.

Quote :

"What makes you think a private school teacher is going to be any better than a public school teacher? Most of them get paid less than public school teachers."

The threat of losing one's job is a great motivator.

3/7/2007 8:54:49 AM

I find it reprehensible that Bridget actually believes some of this stuff.


You are sitting there telling us that this lady making $25k a year is in such bad shape.


Yet you support us creating more and more situations like this.

Don't you understand that the people on the bottom produce a drain on society that keeps lower income families from making what you consider liveable wages?

Do you understand that the dregs of society have almost no incentive to work because they are PENALIZED for working?

Do you even realize that with lower gov't operating costs that this woman would see in increase in her wage?


Look, you've made your point. This poor single mother of two can't drive a brand new Honda Accord. She should have thought of that before she started making babies. She made a choice to have babies instead of having HBO. Why cry about that? She had sufficient opportunities to better herself and she chose to live as a low-income single mother of two.

This isn't a matter of playing the hand you're dealt. It's a matter of playing the hand you've selected.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 12:34:27 PM

Furthermore, I just want to say that you really disgust me.

I know you live in Raleigh/Cary/white suburbia where you don't see the ramifications of these horrible policies but they are slowly ruining the country.

You are hypocritical and you don't even realize it because you're not educated enough to look at the big picture. You're the same loudmouth who bitches about Wal-Mart being too big. You don't think for a second about how beneficial WalMart has been to low income families across the US. Not only does it increase their buying power (part of the reason poor people have more weed and cell phone money) but it keeps inflation low for all consumers.

Since we've already decided that the working class should have to support the low-income families (and by families and mean the good old fuck & run fathers, and spread & whine mothers) shouldn't you be HAPPY that the market has provided them with a place to increase their buying power???

Seriously, if you're going to be wrong about everything try not to be so loud about it.

We get it... you're emotional and you make decisions based on your mood and feelings.

This is why people are terrified of women when it comes to making important decisions.


Look at the Hispanic population. They make low wages yet they manage to buy reliable transportation and drink beer every weekend. It's because they pool their costs as a family unit. They cook meals, live in big groups, and WORK (all novel concepts to the white trash and black communities).

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 1:05:38 PM

Quote :

"I find it reprehensible that Bridget actually believes some of this stuff."

LOL

reprehensible

Quote :

"You are sitting there telling us that this lady making $25k a year is in such bad shape."

She is. You all failed at making a decent monthly operating budget for her.

Quote :

"Yet you support us creating more and more situations like this."

So far, I've said I want public daycare and pre-school.

Quote :

"Don't you understand that the people on the bottom produce a drain on society that keeps lower income families from making what you consider liveable wages?"

That's right. The lack of a liveable wage has nothing to do with our form of capitalism.

Quote :

"Do you understand that the dregs of society have almost no incentive to work because they are PENALIZED for working?"

Then why do most of them work?

Quote :

"Do you even realize that with lower gov't operating costs that this woman would see in increase in her wage?"

I understand that. How large an increase--how much of her taxes goes to assistance for others now? Who would actually benefit most from lower government operating costs? (Hint: Top earners. And don't give me that trickle down bullshit.)

I agree with you that the middle class is getting the shaft, but it's not because there's some huge population of people not working and collecting gratuitous amounts of money in assistance; it's because of things like corporate welfare and numerous tax loopholes for the top earners that the middle class has to make up for.

Quote :

"Look, you've made your point. This poor single mother of two can't drive a brand new Honda Accord. She should have thought of that before she started making babies. She made a choice to have babies instead of having HBO. Why cry about that? She had sufficient opportunities to better herself and she chose to live as a low-income single mother of two."

Nobody's complaining about not having HBO or a new car. When you're working full-time, you should be able to support yourself and your children; I believe the system should work this way. You disagree.

Quote :

"This isn't a matter of playing the hand you're dealt. It's a matter of playing the hand you've selected."

A hand that should be manageable. You're acting like she hit on 20 or something.

Quote :

"Furthermore, I just want to say that you really disgust me."

I'm so reprehensible and disgusting!

LOCK ME UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!

Quote :

"I know you live in Raleigh/Cary/white suburbia where you don't see the ramifications of these horrible policies but they are slowly ruining the country."

Ruining our country?!?! LOL

Quote :

"You are hypocritical and you don't even realize it because you're not educated enough to look at the big picture. You're the same loudmouth who bitches about Wal-Mart being too big. You don't think for a second about how beneficial WalMart has been to low income families across the US. Not only does it increase their buying power (part of the reason poor people have more weed and cell phone money) but it keeps inflation low for all consumers."

Who said anything about Wal-Mart? I'm sure I've mentioned somewhere that Wal-Mart hurts small businesses, but I'm well aware that it benefits a large chunk of the population. I'd like to see WalMart treat its employees a bit better and lay off some of their predatory business practices.

Quote :

"Since we've already decided that the working class should have to support the low-income families (and by families and mean the good old fuck & run fathers, and spread & whine mothers) shouldn't you be HAPPY that the market has provided them with a place to increase their buying power???"

It's hilarious that you think I'm too uneducated to see the big picture when you're clearly the one missing it. We may disagree on how the system should work, and I can accept that. BUT your characterization of low income families as promiscuous, whiney, lazy, and irresponsible with money is just absurd...that's where your picture is all wrong, and that's what I've taken fault with from the beginning. Furthermore, how can you call one group of people "working class" and another group as "low-income." Income means they're working.

Quote :

"working class: The socioeconomic class consisting of people who work for wages, especially low wages, including unskilled and semiskilled laborers and their families."

Quote :

"Seriously, if you're going to be wrong about everything try not to be so loud about it. We get it... you're emotional and you make decisions based on your mood and feelings. This is why people are terrified of women when it comes to making important decisions."

I am an emotional person, but I'm getting better at ignoring that noise. Either way, I'd rather be empathic than delusional like you.

Quote :

"Look at the Hispanic population. They make low wages yet they manage to buy reliable transportation and drink beer every weekend. It's because they pool their costs as a family unit. They cook meals, live in big groups, and WORK (all novel concepts to the white trash and black communities)."

Oh, so this whole thread is about black people, not poor people. Why didn't you say something?



[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM. Reason : sss]

3/7/2007 1:38:58 PM

Quote :

"your characterization of low income families as promiscuous, whiney, lazy, and irresponsible with money is just absurd."

Low income families are for the most part promiscuous, lazy, and irresponsible.


A lot of the "whining" and "noise" comes from you crazy ass people that think it should be our responsibility to do something about it.

3/7/2007 1:43:53 PM

It's not my responsibility to support anyone other than myself and my family

3/7/2007 1:44:12 PM

looks like you should move to another country then.

3/7/2007 1:46:59 PM

Quote :

"A hand that should be manageable."

Your scenario contains a single mother with two kids and no college education.

3/7/2007 1:51:11 PM

I'm just fine here in the USA...I'm not the one complaining after all

3/7/2007 1:55:12 PM

Quote :

"rallydurham: Low income families are for the most part promiscuous, lazy, and irresponsible. A lot of the "whining" and "noise" comes from you crazy ass people that think it should be our responsibility to do something about it."

No, they are not. And certainly not at rates any higher than other classes.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: I'm just fine here in the USA...I'm not the one complaining after all"

Actually, you are. This whole thread is about people complaining about their tax money going to social programs, and you've included yourself with them:

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: It's not my responsibility to support anyone other than myself and my family"

3/7/2007 2:05:02 PM

Quote :

"Actually, you are. This whole thread is about people complaining about their tax money going to social programs, and you've included yourself with them"

I thought the whole thread was about you complaining that there wasnt free daycare for that lady with 2 kids who also has some sense of entitlement

I'm not complaining even though somebody like sarijoul thinks I should move out of the country because I'm so selfish I don't want to pay my hard earned money for everyone else to have free shit

3/7/2007 2:06:25 PM

No, this whole thread is about rallydurham thinking that poor people are poor because they spend their money on cell phones, meals out, and drugs/alcohol and that he's footing the bill for it.

3/7/2007 2:11:07 PM

Again, what policy does she want changed? I feel whatever policy changes she has in mind will have dangerous if not disasterous consequences. But since she has not listed them I cannot know for sure.

But as so many have pointed out, this debate is stupid. No one can make it through life alone, not even a single non-mother.

But an income of $25k is above and beyond what is needed.

Find another single mother, move in together. A two bedroom will suffice, one room for the adults to share (twin beds) the other for the kids (bunk beds). it will be cozy, but it might just turn out to be a great life for everyone involved. Day-care sucks for kids, costs money, and is unhappy for parents (separation). If they staggar their work days and hours, they can work it.

One works nights, stocking shelves at Wal-mart lets say, gets home just in time to send the kids to school and see them come home. The other works early morning to night as a cashier or manager, getting home just in time to take over before the night-worker takes off for work.

They wouldn't even need to share the bed. Very efficient.

Oh, and I am an attention hog, address what I say:

Quote :

"I've stopped in places in NC where the entire town is depressed in poverty, and I have no idea what to do there. Towns like that are included in the rare instances that I think economics folks can be of some help."

I do. Eliminate the minimum wage and reduce taxes. Regional Poverty is the result of business imbalances (all the local businesses competed poorly on the national level and thus went bankrupt, leaving the workers unemployed). In a free market, such imbalances are corrected by allowing the local wages to fall in response to unemployment, drawing sucessful businesses to the area in search of low wages.

However, a minimum wage prevents local wages from falling and thus eliminates the incentive for businesses to correct this imbalance.

Quote :

"What makes you think a private school teacher is going to be any better than a public school teacher? Most of them get paid less than public school teachers."

The threat of losing one's job is a great motivator.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : Is it possible all she wants is rallydurham to shut up? Fine, shut up rallydurham. ]

3/7/2007 2:11:38 PM

Quote :

"Low income families are for the most part promiscuous, lazy, and irresponsible."

Sounds like a party.

If only they had some money...

3/7/2007 2:15:59 PM

Quote :

"I do. Eliminate the minimum wage and reduce taxes. Regional Poverty is the result of business imbalances (all the local businesses competed poorly on the national level and thus went bankrupt, leaving the workers unemployed). In a free market, such imbalances are corrected by allowing the local wages to fall in response to unemployment, drawing sucessful businesses to the area in search of low wages. However, a minimum wage prevents local wages from falling and thus eliminates the incentive for businesses to correct this imbalance."

You know I just barely understand this stuff. And you also know I don't trust it.

Surely there's a way to incentivize businesses that doesn't include offering them quite possibly the cheapest labor force in the Western world.

Quote :

"The threat of losing one's job is a great motivator."

On that argument, he was arguing that teachers at private schools would be less likely to "indoctrinate" students and criticize their lifestyles than at public schools. Whatever, it was a silly argument. I'd say the private school teachers (in NC) are not at any threat of losing their jobs because if they do there's a desperate school to pick them up and have them back in the classroom in no time.

Benefits of private school would include smaller class sizes and opportunity for alternative forms of learning (but public schools are picking up with this, as well.) Class size is the biggest positive. But this whole "indoctrination" thing is no less likely at a private school than it is at a public school.

Quote :

"Again, what policy does she want changed? I feel whatever policy changes she has in mind will have dangerous if not disasterous consequences. But since she has not listed them I cannot know for sure."

Public daycare, public pre-school...to start.

I'd also like to figure out a way to stop segregating poverty. (Policy could come in here.)

Quote :

"But as so many have pointed out, this debate is stupid. No one can make it through life alone, not even a single non-mother."

? Is this a sweet remark on the nature of man?

Quote :

"But an income of $25k is above and beyond what is needed. Find another single mother, move in together. A two bedroom will suffice, one room for the adults to share (twin beds) the other for the kids (bunk beds). it will be cozy, but it might just turn out to be a great life for everyone involved. Day-care sucks for kids, costs money, and is unhappy for parents (separation). If they staggar their work days and hours, they can work it. One works nights, stocking shelves at Wal-mart lets say, gets home just in time to send the kids to school and see them come home. The other works early morning to night as a cashier or manager, getting home just in time to take over before the night-worker takes off for work. They wouldn't even need to share the bed. Very efficient. "

Great idea. I don't think it should have to be that way though.

They used to say that you're supposed to spend a third of your income on food, and housing was cheap. What the fuck happened? Why did the cost of living shoot up so high that women had to leave the home and get jobs? Are poor people to blame again? (These questions aren't rhetorical; I've never gotten a clear answer on what happened.)

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : sss]

3/7/2007 2:51:42 PM

Quote :

"What the fuck happened? Why did the cost of living shoot up so high"

Try again.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30731.html

3/7/2007 2:55:58 PM

^That's a really cute article.

Okay, back to someone who actually knows shit...tell me about this CPI.

(Sorry, the whole bit in that article about housing was just too ludicrous for me to take it seriously. And they kept talking about the average American --the median income in NC is over $40,000/year, the average even higher. So what about all the folks who aren't average? As cost of living has gone up, wages have gone up, too, I get that. But the wage gap has also grown...leaving some folks unable to handle the cost of living increase. And they used the average wage of a manufacturing employee...do we still have manufacturing jobs? How does that represent the average American?)

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : Okay, no more comments. I'm ready for an education, please. Not you, rally.]

3/7/2007 3:01:21 PM

Quote :

"what about all the folks who aren't average"

What about them?

3/7/2007 3:23:32 PM

^Back in the day, the wage gap was small that we could talk about the average American and it had some validity when applied to America overall. But now the wage gap is so large, there is no average American anymore.

3/7/2007 3:26:24 PM

So, you are upset that this gap has formed?

3/7/2007 3:28:13 PM

Upset...LOL

Yes, the wage gap is a concern to me. But I'm also concerned about the concept of "average." Here's what I know about "average":

Average CEO pay in 2002 was $7.2 million a year. (Up 422 percent from 1980.)
Average worker pay in 2002 was $30,722 a year. (Up 1.6 percent from 1980.)

I realize that's averages and not medians, but the numbers are still disturbing.

So how any of you can defend a system that produces such extremely disparate outcomes is beyond me.

3/7/2007 3:44:25 PM

Quote :

"Surely there's a way to incentivize businesses that doesn't include offering them quite possibly the cheapest labor force in the Western world."

The price system is the only functional means we have for allocating scarce resources with alternative uses.

Quote :

"Public daycare, public pre-school...to start."

Again, the price system works. Let it do so. We do not need to make the daycare and pre-school industry as broken as today's public schools. If you insist then we should provide vouchers to qualifying poor with children. Only a small fraction of society is as destitute as you describe, why should we wreck 100% of the industry in order to make it available to 5% of the population? The rich can and MUST keep paying for their childcare.

Quote :

"I'd also like to figure out a way to stop segregating poverty."

Easy, the city governments of our nation have been siezed upon by the rich and middle class to dispel the poor and (perceived) criminals from among them by making it too expensive. They did this through the use of zoning laws, land-use restrictions, tennent's rights laws, and rent control.

Quote :

"They used to say that you're supposed to spend a third of your income on food, and housing was cheap. What the fuck happened? Why did the cost of living shoot up so high that women had to leave the home and get jobs?"

See my above statement as to why housing has become so expensive, only add in construction regulations and restrictions. Yes, all these laws were passed with good intentions, but the unforseen consequence has been to dramatically increase the effort and expense of construction. Back in the day, my grandparents built their own home, as many poor did back then. Of course, today, such would never meet code and therefore the city would bulldoze it. The only choice left is to buy or rent a professionally built house, which is infinitely more expensive.

In the cities, land-lords used to keep their buildings under constant construction, adding new floors to old buildings to house ever more tennents. As a result, housing was plentiful, competition for tennents was fierce, and rents were low. Today you need a building license from the city, must only employ licensed unionized contractors, must meet excessive building codes, must get the approval of the neighborhood association (which is invariably made up of competitor land-lords). Add to this the threat of rent control which can render your property worthless. So developers do not build housing, preferring instead to build unregulated commercial rental space. As a result housing is scarce and rents are high.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36930.html

Quote :

"So how any of you can defend a system that produces such extremely disparate outcomes is beyond me."

Simple, if the process was just then the outcome is defensible. Now, as I've shown government has been hijacked by the wealthy and is using its power to systematically persecute the poor, so the process is demonstrably unjust. But looking exclusively at outcomes is silly.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : lnk]

3/7/2007 3:49:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the wage gap is a concern to me."

Sorry I decided to go to college instead of have kids and caused the wage gap to increase.

Sorry if me making more results in an increase in prices thus forcing people making minimum wage to not be able to afford the same goods/services they used to be able to obtain with their salaries.

Quote :

"Average CEO pay in 2002 was $7.2 million a year. (Up 422 percent from 1980.)"

CEOs can choose to lower their salaries and pass this extra money down to their employees, but they choose not to. How can you be upset that a founder of some company chooses to pay himself a lot? It's his company so he can do what he wants (assuming board approval and such.)

3/7/2007 3:51:38 PM

Quote :

"Average worker pay in 2002 was $30,722 a year. (Up 1.6 percent from 1980.)"

Well for starters why don't you try looking at real wages.


"pay" hasn't increased because of all the goddam "benefits" that workers receive now.



If it wasn't for our horrendously flawed healthcare which distorts the price of medical services then worker pay would have increased a whole lot more.




Bridget you just don't fucking get it.

There you go with your "free daycare" nutjob idea. Yeah that sounds great. You knwo what, I need an Ipod, any chance we can legislate free ipods to american citizens too?

Do you not realize that by giving away free daycare you create an incentive to have more children??? If the cost is reduced to raise children then you damn well better believe MORE children are going to be born not less. Are you really this dumb? You want MORE children growing up in single parent homes with low income mothers?

Where is the cutoff for this "free daycare"? Does everyone get it? Do only workers under $25,000/year get it? Do you realize what this does? Now if a single mom is offered a job for $25,000 or $30,000 (all things else the same) she will always select the $25k job because the free daycare incentive is worth more than $5,000/year to her.

Does that make any fucking sense? Once again you penalize the middle class workers who have to pay for THEIR daycare and for the low income family daycare.

I cant believe any non-communist would support free daycare. Jesus.

If only Applebees gave away free bacon cheeseburgers... I'd be there every night!!!

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:07:45 PM

Maybe your lady friend with 2 kids should strive to be a CEO

It makes a lot more sense to me to adapt to the system, rather than trying to adapt the system to you

3/7/2007 4:08:42 PM

Quote :

"Sorry I decided to go to college instead of have kids and caused the wage gap to increase. Sorry if me making more results in an increase in prices thus forcing people making minimum wage to not be able to afford the same goods/services they used to be able to obtain with their salaries."

No need to apologize. But you should apologize for posting the link to the deceptive article that would lead one to believe that cost of living is a non-issue.

Quote :

"CEOs can choose to lower their salaries and pass this extra money down to their employees, but they choose not to. How can you be upset that a founder of some company chooses to pay himself a lot? It's his company so he can do what he wants (assuming board approval and such.)"

Running a company into the ground and jumping out the top floor with a golden parachute is unacceptable.

3/7/2007 4:11:19 PM

Quote :

"Running a company into the ground and jumping out the top floor with a golden parachute is unacceptable."

That's about the only thing I agree with you about.

3/7/2007 4:12:34 PM

FURTHERMORE, do you know what happens if you make a service free that someone is currently paying for????


Let's say this poor old single slut mom with two kids is making $25k a year and is paying $5k/year for daycare.

All the sudden daycare is free.

This is income redistribution at its finest. She now has $5,000 left to spend on whatever she wants.

Guess what this fiscally irresponsible lady is going to do with this money? *Hint* She's not investing it in the stock market, creating a college fund for her kids.

Its going to alcohol/drugs, cell phones, cars, toys, & luxury goods. Her autonomous consumption goods are already being met from the $25k. This $5k becomes money she can spend however she damn well pleases.

We arent giving this lady DAYCARE. She was already getting DAYCARE.

We are giving her $5,000 that she can choose to spend however she sees fit.



Gee, what a terrible person I am for not supporting an idea that gives MONEY to the poor and encourages them to have more children. I mean, we saw how well those walmart gift cards worked in New Orleans. Food, water, shelter, medicine that was all those people wanted until we gave them gift cards that were redeemed for ELECTRONICS within hours.



[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:18 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:15:59 PM

Bridget do you think its the norm for CEOs just to make fat stacks of bankroll at the expense of the entire company and then just quit while they're ahead? Just because Enron and some other companies did that, is it the norm?

3/7/2007 4:16:36 PM

Quote :

"Running a company into the ground and jumping out the top floor with a golden parachute is unacceptable."

To the owners. If you fear such an eventuality is likely then give them a call, I guarantee they will do something about it since it would be their money that was lost when the company met ground.

Otherwise, in the grand scheme of things, the fortunes of the odd company is irrelevant.

And CEO packages have nothing to do with worker salaries. If the CEO did not claim it as his wages then it would be returned to shareholders as dividends. As such, even if the CEO refused his obsene salary, worker compensation would remain unchanged.

3/7/2007 4:16:58 PM

God forbid the possibility that some CEOs busted their asses through the ranks and worked long and hard for years to get in that position...lets just punish them since we envy their salay

3/7/2007 4:18:00 PM

Agreed

3/7/2007 4:18:48 PM