As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

[fallen paradise]

You're basically talking about equality in giving people the same resources to begin with, as well as assuming that wealth equals possibility to succeed. How do you even measure success to begin with? Success in a career for an artist will never pay as high as success in a career as a professional sports athlete or an actor, but that doesn't mean you can automatically ignore the gap that exists between those professions and assume anyone who falls under X line isn't equal.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, if it is I apologize because I'm having trouble processing what you are saying. Would you be willing to restate it in a different way. My apologies, sometimes my brain just doesn't quite process well.

[Noelle]

No problem, I wasn't terribly clear.

I also think that we worry far to much about "gaps" in America. As an educator one thing we always are talking about, the achievement gap between blacks and whites. Rather than concern ourselves with the "gap" I think we should worry about just meeting a base line standard of education. If all blacks are getting an education that sufficiently prepares them for college or beyond who cares if the whites happen to be scoring higher on a testing measure? As a society we seem far more concerned lately with equality than we are with success, and I personally think that is a dangerous paradigm shift. If all we care about is making everyone equal we aren't pushing to the truly brilliant to excel.

I do agree to a point with what you're saying; if everybody is getting what they should and still can't make something of it, you have to question whose fault it is exactly and under what circumstances it's happening.

In terms of success, however, how are you measuring success? Financially-speaking, as was my example, an artist will likely not be anywhere near as financially successful as a doctor or an actor, but may be successful in their field, which by its very nature does not and will not pay as much as the others. Under what conditions are we pushing success and how do we figure out who is and who isn't?

[fallen paradise]

No problem, I wasn't terribly clear.

I do agree to a point with what you're saying; if everybody is getting what they should and still can't make something of it, you have to question whose fault it is exactly and under what circumstances it's happening.

In terms of success, however, how are you measuring success? Financially-speaking, as was my example, an artist will likely not be anywhere near as financially successful as a doctor or an actor, but may be successful in their field, which by its very nature does not and will not pay as much as the others. Under what conditions are we pushing success and how do we figure out who is and who isn't?

I'm far less concerned with success than I am with achievement. Let me give an example from my field, education. Even in school districts that are meeting the standard for excellence under NCLB (No Child Left Behind) they can be penalized if they are not making sufficient progress in closing the performance gap that often exists between whites and minorities (such as latinos and blacks). In this case the gap isn't terribly relevant if the blacks and latinos are performing to a sufficient level to meet State standards (assuming those standards are sufficiently rigorous). To put it in a context, if the minority students are reading at grade level and the white students are reading a grade or two above grade level who cares? Everyone is succeeding in a meaningful way.

In terms of wealth and poverty, look at basic needs (housing, food, clothing, etc). We as a nation do pretty well, if you compare our "poor" to the "poor" in other countries we find that our "poor" tend to be doing pretty well. I'm not saying our current level of poverty and economic disparity is good, but we also have an elevated standard of living, even among our poorest when compared with much of the world.

I just think we spend too much time focusing on the fact that we have rich people and we often get into a mindset of "punish the rich" rather than "help the poor." We should focus on shifting our education and welfare system so that it corrects the problem, teaching those in the bottom rungs of society how to better themselves through job training, basic fiscal planning, etc. This would be a better focus, I believe, than wealth redistribution. And not everyone should shoot for the same goal of the million dollar mansion. Part of the problem people often have with self motivation is their goals aren't realistic. We put such an emphasis on house size and the car you drive and making it big. We should help people set reasonable goals "First lets find an apartment where you can work and make rent and save a little, lets look at a down payment on a small home, lets put that raise you got into savings or investing rather than getting that 40" tv..."

The last bit there was a bit tangential, but I hope it better illustrated my point - we shouldn't rag on millionaires for being wealthy, we shouldn't attempt to redistribute the wealth, there will always be "poor" and "rich" even if the gap shrinks considerably as long as we think in terms of classes of people there will always be a gap. If we think in terms of "good enough" or "need to improve" we can set reasonable policy and goals to solve the problems we face.

[Noelle]

I understand your point a lot better and I really do agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think it's very reasonable, I was just skeptical with how you put it to begin with.

Not everybody WILL be a millionaire, in fact, I think it would benefit us as a society to give the middle and lower classes a big reality check to say that most people can't and won't get there. I actually had a conversation with a customer at work today who couldn't believe that if I won the lottery, I probably wouldn't move out of an apartment. I kept insisting I don't need the space, I don't need 'stuff', and she seemed really baffled at the idea. I'd probably pay off my student loans, invest some, and then blow the greater part of it going out and experiencing the world rather than collecting gadgets and useless crap. (yes, this is also a tangent!)

I absolutely think our welfare and education systems need some kind of kick in the ass, whatever it is, to promote self-sustainability, motivation, and critical thinking. I don't know how common the fabled "welfare queens" actually are, but I think it's clear that it's time to make people realize that they need to take responsibility for themselves and the direction they're headed. You can blame the media for pushing consumerist ideals, but we ultimately have the responsibility to reasonably ask ourselves if those habits and choices are good for us.

Your point about education gaps is definitely fascinating. I wonder if that gap is partly due to the environment and culture in which the child is raised. In movies like "Precious" (I know, I know, movies aren't the greatest source of evidence about the way things really are), you see a poor, uneducated black family where education isn't just uncultivated, but is strangely discouraged. I guess this gets into some very tangential race debates in terms of how much minority success (or lack, thereof) has to do with 'the system' and how much of it actually has to do with issues within their own community.

[Oniya]

I think part of the reason that education is 'discouraged' in certain lower-income cultures is that the extra paycheck (even if it's McD's) is a more tangible, immediate gain.  Unfortunately, these are likely to also be the people that discover that illegal ways of making money (stealing, drugs, prostitution) pays even better than McDonalds, and still doesn't require a high school diploma.  It's not just limited to inner-city blacks, as you see in the movies.  Meth manufacture and dealing is burning (sometimes literally) its way through rural communities.

[Noelle]

I definitely know about the meth issue...it's been a rampant problem in my state for some time, since we don't typically get the 'harder' drugs trafficked through here, and we have a large, and very bored rural population. From what I understand, usage has dropped quite a bit in the last few years, especially with pseudoephedrine (I think that's it?) becoming harder to obtain, but meth is like the MacGuyver of drugs ;P

You're probably right, though. When you're struggling for money, putting your kid to work is near-immediate relief whereas education takes time to pay off.

[fallen paradise]

What you find when you look at loads of educational and statistical data is that the achievement gap isn't drawn along racial lines as much as it is drawn along socio-economic lines. If you look at a region that is largely white (such as Central NY) you find that there is still a gap and it has nothing to do with race. There are many other contributing factors, such as the parents academic aspirations and view of the worth of schooling. Bandura did a large study in 1997 or 1998 that examined the correlations of self-efficacy (belief in your ability to do something) and student academic success. What he found was that students with parents who had higher levels of schooling and higher academic aspirations for their children led to students with higher self efficacy. He was also able to find some relatively significant correlations between student self-efficacy and pro-social behavior, academic success, lack of discipline problems, lower rates of depressions, etc.

Another factor that exists, in a smaller way, is some of the testing bias. Though they are improving some of the standardized tests are still not fully normalized for minorities and especially ESL (English as a Second Language) students. It isn't that the tests need to be dumbed down, but they need to be reviewed to make sure they are not assuming cultural norms or life experiences that all kids do not have. For example, a writing prompt that is about a family vacation puts poor families at a huge disadvantage, a story about a trip to the beach puts inner city youth at a disadvantage, because they don't have the background knowledge and life experience to draw on.

There is also the fact that yes, in some families education is actively discouraged, or due to financial constraints the extra income is needed. Again, I think part of the problem is our focus that everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone should pursue a four year degree or higher education in general. On thing that Bush Jr. talked about prior to 9/11 was reworking our education system to focus on developing and expanding our trade schools (one of main reasons I voted for him was his education platform). Sadly other issues ended up consuming the presidency, but I think the solution is still a great one. It also helps solve some of the financial burdens as well, since many states have paid apprenticeships. That way while they are learning a valuable and profitable trade skill they are also helping supplement their families income. This is why the military option is one taken by many minorities, they get to earn a paycheck while they also learn valuable skills, but if we expand our focus on teaching trades and get away from the stigma that you are worthless without college I think we could see a lot of improvement in both the education and the economy.

[RubySlippers]

For me the issue is vocational education when its virtually free in High School, not afterwards. What is the good of trade schools if parents or the students go into debt when many of these careers could be covered in grades 9 to 12. Why not teach something like restaurant employability and cooking over two years so the can walk out and get a job from High School why expect them to pay for a cooking school? You could do this for many entry level positions I would think.

A student should get the breadth of education sufficient for being a citizen by 8th grade unless they are very likely to go to college. And why are students leaving High School without a semester or two in something to make money in? Surely you can teach employment skills like cashiering and customer service to everyone so they have some skill to use as a backup.

As for the poor and minorities this would be good for all students if your a poor black man you could leave High School fully trained and licensed as a barber or some other trade where you could find work in and be  nice employee. Without going into debt to do so.

[Oniya]

I don't know about other places, but my high school offered courses in hair-cutting (given the flashy name of 'Cosmetology'), Auto Shop, and Typing (although they probably call it 'Word Processing' these days.)  There were also the standards of Home Ec and Wood/Metal Shop, and at least one unit in the math classes was spent on teaching us how to a) write checks and balance a checkbook, as well as how to use a calculator.  The math was mandatory, but the other courses I listed were electives.

So, the courses exist - there's only the issue of getting students to take them.

[Serephino]

Most of the schools in my area are small, but we do have a county vo-tech.  Starting in 10th grade students can go there for half a semester.  They have all kinds of programs.  We took a tour there at the beginning of 10th grade.  And I believe that once you finish there you can test for a state license in whatever field if one is required.   

[RubySlippers]

I think its unrealistic expectations say you have 99 students all generally equal as to the culture they come from and lets say typical middle class.

33 will be above the average in any skill from math to sports to social skills.

33 will be "average" low to high.

33 will be markedly below average.

So why in my area are we assuming ,I take its the normal view in most places, that you can make a student performing low in english and/or math and/or science into an average student some people just are not good at things.

One example here as an example were you above average in everything, average in everything - its unlikely. I for example can't do sports even disabled specific versions at all, artistic skill - not and was not socially popular in school. But I did well in bookkeeping classes. But for me thinking back they pushed me towards college and frankly it was not a good fit I should have studied during those years if I could something like retail management or have taken a general applied business background. But no I kept being shoved towards college an no one ever mentioned that anything else was an option.

So why not track students like other nations the top 33 students pre-college and the rest offer vocational technology almost exclusively, maybe some towards a two-year degree prep or skilled apprenticeships. In Germany a friend of mine graduated secondary school in her fifth year in banking giving loans, handling money and other high end tasks. How are we supposed to compete globally when they use nearly 100% of their people to work and we piss away a third becasue we fail the students that are NOT college material at all and lower income?

[Noelle]

I'm curious to know as to where you're getting all of your numbers.

[Oniya]

If you're talking about the 33s, it's probably based on the word 'average'.

Actually, given 100 kids, it'll be closer to 68 that are 'average', 13 or 14 are somewhat better than average, 13 or 14 are somewhat less than average, 2 or 3 are significantly advanced, and 2 or 3 will be significantly impaired.  This is based on the normal or Gaussian distribution.

[itsbeenfun2000]

The reason we do not do what they do in Europe for education is because everyone has the opportunity to better themselves in a field they choose. We don't close off some of our population from higher educations simply because they do not do well on a test before or during high school. Many of our students blossom after they leave high school when it becomes important to them in the field they choose. If they were told at 14, 15 that they can not continue to look into opportunities that may become interested later you have pigeon holed them into a profession that they may not even be interested in.

I have had numerous students realize during their sophomore year in high school that they want to do something that requires a college degree. Miraculously their grades go up because of it.

[Oniya]

Although, there is/was the Differential Aptitude Test, that they gave us in 11th grade.  Supposedly it was to give you some idea what careers you were suited for based on how you did on various skill tests.  There were eight sub-tests: 

Verbal reasoning test
Numerical ability test
Abstract reasoning test
Mechanical reasoning
Space relations or spatial aptitude test
Spelling test
Language usage test
Spatial aptitude test
Perceptual speed and accuracy test (The one I took called this 'Clerical Speed and Accuracy' - ironically, I tanked on this one.)

[Serephino]

I remember taking one of those through a local government agency.  Over a two week period we took a bunch of tests, then the last few days we were given our scores in each area, and given a manual that gave us a list of careers we might be good at based on our scores.  Of course I'm personally not suited for any career.

Ruby, if you're good at book keeping, have you ever considered Accounting?  My mom went to school for that and Business Management.  Now she keeps the books for a restaurant.  She's good with numbers.  I however, am not.  I scored below average at mathematical skills, and above average on everything else.   

[Asuras]

I don't like those tests just because they seem to reinforce the idea that someone can't do X because they didn't score well in X at the time.

[RubySlippers]

If you're talking about the 33s, it's probably based on the word 'average'.

Actually, given 100 kids, it'll be closer to 68 that are 'average', 13 or 14 are somewhat better than average, 13 or 14 are somewhat less than average, 2 or 3 are significantly advanced, and 2 or 3 will be significantly impaired.  This is based on the normal or Gaussian distribution.

Its 99 to split up into three groups and I meant all employment based skills including social, physical, personality work habits and things they do test for. For example take ones social skills do they test for that in many jobs that is important, physical aptitude in some jobs that is important the labor intensive ones and work habits are important to and some students don't seem to have good ability there sometimes. I just point out if we are looking for college prep for a bachelors degree we should educate perhaps ,at most, 30% of students for that. The rest for employment, a two-year degree or trade school would be better.

And by the wy did anyoen figure out what "average" for students are or re they guessing like test 100,000 students and average the information to a norm? Some average skills seem very advancd to me such as reading a bus schedule for information in a certain period of time requires more than literacy. Figuring out word problemsthe same way the student might know how to do the formulas but not if in a word problem adding reading and sorting out to math?

[Noelle]

I would just like to point out that a massive amount of careers that uphold the standard of living that you and I enjoy are heavily contingent upon preparing our youth for a higher education. 30% divided up among the various interests of that particular group of students who are "prepared" for college further waters down the number who go on to get degrees in areas that actually affect your life, such as doctors and scientists -- if all of those students even make it through college. By discouraging higher education, you're effectively killing your own quality of life.

Besides, in your example, how do you even decide who these students are that need what education? What if some year you have 90% of your student population who either wants to or is able to work towards a college education? Do you deny 60%? There are also instances of students who simply don't perform well in high school who are still willing to work hard and flourish in college, as well as vice versa -- kids who do well in high school who hit college and just don't care anymore.

I guess I really don't quite grasp your view on education. Education has never been a detrimental thing for a society, as far as I know -- the Renaissance is a great example of society embracing knowledge. Conversely, when you neglect it and begin to even edge on anti-intellectual, you throw yourself into the Dark Ages with little development whatsoever.

[RubySlippers]

Simple the bottom 40% ,as tested for over say ten grades 1 to 10th, in mathematics and/or english skills should not go into any form of college prep - period. Murray in his work points these student will never earn any four year degree but higher end students in that group might earn a two year degree if career focused in areas they showed talent for - an A.S. in Accounting doesn't demand algebra with modern technology and software.

The rest could be offered some pre-college and trade education or just trade education in their last two years of High School (towards community college) and the top 30% pre-college but damn it teach them some way to make money a semester of some skills like cashiering, handling money, customer service so they have a practical skill group.

Its not that hard.

[Oniya]

So, using Noelle's example:

What if some year you have 90% of your student population who either wants to or is able to work towards a college education?

You are saying

Simple the bottom 40% ,as tested for over say ten grades 1 to 10th, in mathematics and/or english skills should not go into any form of college prep - period.

Putting it into raw numbers:  100 students in a school are tested and 90 of them are willing and able to work towards that college education.  Ten of them, not so much.  Arrange them in order, and the lowest 40 students regardless of their drive and ability are told 'You can't go to college prep.  Ever.  Despite the fact that there were 90 'A' students in that 100, and 10 'C' students, we're denying 30 of those 'A' students the ability to realize the fullness of their drive and ability.'

[Vekseid]

One of the traps some people get into when using statistics is to avoid accounting for statistically probably variations in the numbers that make up those statistics. Hard numbers are thus a bad idea, as a rule.

[Noelle]

Simple the bottom 40% ,as tested for over say ten grades 1 to 10th, in mathematics and/or english skills should not go into any form of college prep - period. Murray in his work points these student will never earn any four year degree but higher end students in that group might earn a two year degree if career focused in areas they showed talent for - an A.S. in Accounting doesn't demand algebra with modern technology and software.

Besides what Oniya already said, in your examples, you are systematically denying otherwise-capable students of pursuing a higher education...because of what, exactly? People in the 'higher' group might earn a degree, but then again, they're not guaranteed to, either. People in the lower group might not earn a degree...but they might succeed, too. You're already squashing that chance before it even has a chance to manifest. And even if a student goes to college and decides it's not for them, so what? Are they ruined individuals? Hardly. Some of those "top level" kids might realize they don't want to do the work in college or can't keep up with it and some of those "bottom level" students might grow up and want to pursue more. Why would you deny them that except to say some piece of paper with filled in bubbles shows they're not good enough? Standardized testing has plenty of its own issues and I sincereely doubt that a piece of paper with some numbers on it speak truly to a person's potential to rise to learn or pursue opportunities.

Your apparent attitude towards furthering education is really puzzling -- I can't quite figure out where you're coming from. More education is never detrimental. If your accountant knows more than just basic algebra (which, by the way, is practically a standard for anyone to know to get by in 'the real world', which is why it's taught as early on as middle school. If your accountant doesn't know algebra, then there's an issue in of itself -- algebra is literally everywhere.) they are able to not only solve more complex issues that may arise, but they can also move up further in their career.

The rest could be offered some pre-college and trade education or just trade education in their last two years of High School (towards community college) and the top 30% pre-college but damn it teach them some way to make money a semester of some skills like cashiering, handling money, customer service so they have a practical skill group.

Its not that hard.

I'm curious...did you ever have a job in high school? I started working at the age of 15 and I was taught these skills on the job. That's why they're entry-level positions and that's why places such as grocery stores hire teenagers -- because the work is simple enough that teenagers can grasp it. Most basic jobs are generally unskilled work and will show you what you need to know. I learned how to bag groceries in literally ten minutes. I learned how to cashier in the course of a few days. I moved on to a bakery and learned to decorate cakes in under a week. I was taught kitchen work in a week. I became a functioning bartender over the course of about two weeks (and some people go to a bartending school -- those people will likely land higher-level bartending jobs, something that would take me years of experience in order to attain the same level of knowledge).

Indeed, if you work enough, you realize you've started to develop an understanding of the job you're in-- I went from packaging bread someone else made to decorating cakes and assisting in baking simply because I had spent enough time at my job that I started to understand the more complex things required. Teaching these things in school I would dare say is redundant and ultimately a waste of time.

[RubySlippers]

Its a simple matter of resources if the state is paying for a childs education why put good money into students for college prep if they are unlikely to earn a degree, teach them a trade or profession over four years where itspretty much free. I'm no idealist we need every young person to be prodective asap after their educations like other nations and we are FAILING. Germany for one has no trouble telling students we are not sending you to college, your good at this level here are a list of trades pick one. If you do it well that you will be trained in if not go to something else. And mostly they must decide on something by their third year in secondary school at the latest. And they are far better than we are economically.

And I never said just testing teacher reports, parents input and the advice of college admissions folks should all count to decide which track a student gets. And a child can always go to college as an adult just don't waste High School by having overly lofty ambitions.

As for job skills when a High School graduate has a job at Burger King and think its ok to regularly show up late without calling there is need for improvement folks - and some can't even make change. Come on a year of general employability skills would not hurt. And if you taught a young person so they leave High School well trained in retail employment including higher end skills it would be great. Some people are just not college material just look at how many students quit by their Junior year with lots of debt and then have no major job skills. And in this job market and society entry level training is very hard to get employers want workers ready to go pretty much.

Back to the topic what we need are moreand better taxes to generate more money to pay for all the social programs people want. Th well-off need to pay more into the system and the poor shouldhve to pay something ven if its $1 so all citizensare involved in the system.

[Jude]

Its a simple matter of resources if the state is paying for a childs education why put good money into students for college prep if they are unlikely to earn a degree, teach them a trade or profession over four years where itspretty much free. I'm no idealist we need every young person to be prodective asap after their educations like other nations and we are FAILING. Germany for one has no trouble telling students we are not sending you to college, your good at this level here are a list of trades pick one. If you do it well that you will be trained in if not go to something else. And mostly they must decide on something by their third year in secondary school at the latest. And they are far better than we are economically.

By what benchmark?

Back to the topic what we need are moreand better taxes to generate more money to pay for all the social programs people want. Th well-off need to pay more into the system and the poor shouldhve to pay something ven if its $1 so all citizensare involved in the system.

Germany is number 19 on the list of countries by public debt thanks to the social programs you're advocating.  America is 47.  Nearly every big European state that does what you're advocating is in the top ranking.  They are also facing rough economic conditions right now.  Take a look at Greece, a robust social welfare system doesn't automatically lead to robust social welfare.

If you tax the rich too much, they will simply relocate, and because we live in a global economy now it's easier than ever to do so.  In the end you'll have fewer big spenders living in your country, many more companies packing up and taking jobs overseas, and even greater economic problems.

I agree, taxes do probably need to be raised on everyone a bit, but not for the sake of paying for more governmental programs.  We can't afford it.  We need to focus on paying off our debt, streamlining government, and getting back into the business of doing what government should do as effectively as possible.