Wealth inequality

[Libby1]

13 hours ago, Ellener said:

 

I don't agree with all the verbal abuse she said flooded her twitter account, don't do that people!

She's been the focus of abuse from trans activists for years. I think a lot of it has to do with her books having a lot of trans fans...so for a time she was a sort of idol for them, and when she didn't live up to their expectations the fall out was immense.  I understand why she wrote that essay, but she was wasting her time.  When people have made up their minds that they're going to savage you, there's not much you can do other than put on your armour and wait for them to move onto another target.

At the end of the day this is a woman whose books resulted in a revival of the British film industry, made quite a lot of people rich, gave many more people steady work over a number of years...and her philanthropic work is exceptional in comparison to most people who reach that level of wealth.   The world is a better place for a lot of people as a result of her work and her philanthropy, and I'd go way beyond saying I don't agree with the verbal abuse she's been flooded with.  The abuse would be despicable regardless of the target - but when it's aimed at somebody who has given away such a massive portion of her wealth to help others, it makes me seriously wonder about the priorities of those who were so quick to abuse her as some sort of wicked witch. 

I wonder what they've ever contributed themselves - those abusive twitter activists who are so embroiled in culture wars that they've completely dismissed the contribution JK Rowling has made towards addressing some of the effects of wealth inequality.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Libby1

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Libby1 said:

the priorities of those who were so quick to abuse her as some sort of wicked witch. 

Isn't that what almost all things boil down to? It's like the whole world has some kind of collective borderline personality...worship someone one minute demonise them the next.

It's like we resist our own freedom by always wanting to contain someone else.

Up on the pedestal or toppled; to use an apt metaphor.

If I were her right now I would go into therapy if that's what she needs to recover from past trauma, apologise for offending people, and keep writing the good stuff- that essay is really difficult to follow! 

 

 

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, Ellener said:

If I were her right now I would go into therapy if that's what she needs to recover from past trauma, apologise for offending people, and keep writing the good stuff- that essay is really difficult to follow! 

 

She was in hot water a while back for supporting a woman who lost her job over tweets, so it's probably started off as a free speech issue (which is of course a massive thing for most writers, understandably) and ended up being very personal.  A day or two after those tweets, the Sun newspaper (one of the worst tabloids in the UK) published a story by JK Rowling's abusive ex husband saying something along the lines of "I slapped JK, and I'm not sorry".  That was particularly vile on all sorts of levels, and it fed into some of the more violent commentary that had been directed against her.  He's probably really angry that he missed out on all her financial success.

[pepperbird]

On 6/20/2020 at 6:57 AM, Ellener said:

You are looking at 'the problem' upside down- why are people getting drunk in our societies? 

People who drink do so for many reasons. Some are even genetic. An awful lot drink because they enjoy it.
I used to drink every now and again. Not much, just enough to get maybe a bit tipsy. Back in my uni days, we'd have "purple jesus"  parties ( don't ask you don't want to know) and every so often, someone would end up needing to visit the ER. It wasn't because of "society"- it was just that they were stupid kids doing foolish things- just like many kids do.
I agree some drink to excess to self medicate, because they are sad or angry,. but just as many just like to be drunk. I don't know why.

[pepperbird]

On 6/20/2020 at 2:53 PM, preraph said:

Yeah, and graphic arts.  It's the new basketball.  

Pepper, I've harped on here before that we don't need 4 years of college, if they'd get down to business instead of having people repeat the basics they did or should have gotten in high school.  These schools are only in it for the money, and need some regulation.  

When my older daughter declared her major, it was law. That's great, but her minor? Occult Studies! Between you, me and the fence post, I think that's bizarre.
She picked that minor because she had to take one class in "culture" as a degree requirement.  The only one that would fit her class schedule was "alchemy" . I was really ticked, but it turned out to be more about the early days of chemistry than anything else, and she pulled a 95 in the class. She really enjoyed it, and took a few more as electives. She did so well, she picked occult studies as her minor. She'll be the first student at her university to graduate with that combo (surprise, surprise) and she's also in the top percentile of students at her uni. Smart ass kid,lol.

[schlumpy]

11 hours ago, Libby1 said:

 When people have made up their minds that they're going to savage you, there's not much you can do other than put on your armour and wait for them to move onto another target.

Or get them before they get you and with the kind of money she has the bank that possibility did or does exist.

She certainly deserves respect for what she has accomplished.

As with any group it's all about their little narrow focus or slice of life and what someone is going to do for them.

[preraph]

4 minutes ago, pepperbird said:

When my older daughter declared her major, it was law. That's great, but her minor? Occult Studies! Between you, me and the fence post, I think that's bizarre.
She picked that minor because she had to take one class in "culture" as a degree requirement.  The only one that would fit her class schedule was "alchemy" . I was really ticked, but it turned out to be more about the early days of chemistry than anything else, and she pulled a 95 in the class. She really enjoyed it, and took a few more as electives. She did so well, she picked occult studies as her minor. She'll be the first student at her university to graduate with that combo (surprise, surprise) and she's also in the top percentile of students at her uni. Smart ass kid,lol.

That's my best laugh of the day.  Honest to God, if they'd had that when I was in college, I would have made it my major.  Oh, jeez.  In the end, it probably would have been too much Biblical stuff for me though.  How will THAT look on her resume?  It's like that one university that made coursework for video games.  Oh, yeah, they're really interested in academia.  They're interested in one thing, those places:  $$$

 

Well, she's tons smarter than me.  Chemistry is my big fail.  

[pepperbird]

47 minutes ago, preraph said:

That's my best laugh of the day.  Honest to God, if they'd had that when I was in college, I would have made it my major.  Oh, jeez.  In the end, it probably would have been too much Biblical stuff for me though.  How will THAT look on her resume?  It's like that one university that made coursework for video games.  Oh, yeah, they're really interested in academia.  They're interested in one thing, those places:  $$$

 

Well, she's tons smarter than me.  Chemistry is my big fail.  

she continues to be an enigma. She's an agnostic autistic asexual who is also a supporter of the CPC ( conservative party of Canada- small "c" conservative, that is), worked to help ban conversion therapy, helped to bring a quadriplegic student here from Afghanistan so she could earn her degree and is now trying to raise awareness about human rights abuses in China and also working with a group investigating curtailing many of the legal protections afforded to corporations that end up being bad for the public.

if she keeps up with her studies, she'll be one of the first autistic students to graduate from her unis. law school. She doesn't want to work in the courtroom though- she wants to be a legal consultant and provide low cost legal consulting to small businesses that might not be able to afford it otherwise. That kid has risk management in her blood- she's so friggin' detail oriented.
Like I said, smart ass kid. 🤣

Edited June 23, 2020 by pepperbird

[preraph]

She sounds amazing!  I bet you had a little something to do with that! 👍

[pepperbird]

3 hours ago, preraph said:

She sounds amazing!  I bet you had a little something to do with that! 👍

nope. she's always been her own person. had her first book ;published when she was 12. She was supposed to help judge a youth literary competiton out of this summer, but it ended up being postponed. She was really disappointed, as the prize was a nice scholarship for the winning students.

[schlumpy]

Improving the wealth gap.

I think the schools have to change and the students will have to be strapped to the cart. Discipline is going to have take a nasty turn because you can't allow a few to ruin it for everyone else. It's too important.

I read somewhere that of the children who attended school in the 1800's, received an education comprehensive in scope than a high school graduate today and they were finished at the age of 16. Latin was once taught in our schools.

Although the boards of education constantly state that it's "For the children" the school is set up for adults not children. The day is set up around the teachers work schedule and the day is longer then necessary to provided baby sitting service for parents. In general, the teaching the kids receive is programmed designed and not able to adapt to individual needs.

I would drop out pre-school and Kindergarten as they are actually baby sitting service disguised as education. Children could start school around six or seven.

I favor going back to Neighborhood schools not for nostalgia reasons but for practical reasons. The first reason is that the experiment of busing has failed to produce the promised outcome. That's lots of money wasted on a bus fleet that could go into the main curricula. The second reason is personal. I feel so sorry for these kids that spend two to three hours a day on a bus going back and forth to school. I'd see them standing at the bus stop shivering in the cold. I was home within ten or fifteen minutes, changed my clothes and headed out to see my friends. That sounds healthier then sitting on a bus sacrificing your freedom and choices for some legislators and academics good intentions.

My knowledge of school curricula tells me that everything that is being taught could easily be given in a 4 to 5 hour school day. The rest of the school day could be devoted to extra instruction or advanced studies for those children that have the brain power or will power to advance themselves. Grade level would not be determined by age but by knowledge. If a child wanted to finish High School at 16 then they could do that if they completed the requirements of which I don't think community service should be one. The schools mission should be education and not social engineering.

For those who like to work with their hands, shop classes could predominate as well as internships with local industries. They could leave school at 16 with a work permit. I have read articles that claim people who start work early can make up the wage gap that going to college supposedly provides. What they do with that money, makes a big difference but I don't want to take away any one's choices. I would only insist that they and they alone harvest the consequences.

Sports would be outside the school perhaps in a football or baseball club just like they do with Pee Wee sports.

That's just a bare outline and a direction I believe would be a successful academic move on the part of the inner city public schools. Lots of it may have to be changed. It will take many years to reverse the swamp of failure that now exists and the focus would be on Inner city schools which some would see as a stigma. Suburban school districts are doing a good job when it comes graduation rates.

Sadly, I do believe the trend is against my Idea. Ohio is embarrassed by the low graduation rate of it's inner city schools and is planning to lower the graduation requirements to compensate. 

When I started they had 98,000 students. Today they have 48,000 with a real graduation rate of 65 percent. When I started they had 128 administrators and now they have over 500. 

I don't know when real reform that gets results, other then promises, will ever materialize. The forces of gain without blame are strong.

 

[Libby1]

21 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

I would drop out pre-school and Kindergarten as they are actually baby sitting service disguised as education. Children could start school around six or seven.

 

A lot of what you're saying sounds sensible.  I think this part would create difficulties for a lot of families where both parents work and they simply can't afford child care, however. Introduction of policies which might effectively mean that one parent (most probably the mother - who in a lot of cases might be the only parent) might be removed from the workforce for some considerable period of time - with all the loss of opportunity (building up skills, getting promoted) that entails.  When I was small, my mother paid a neighbour to look after me (my brother was at school by then) while she was at work.  My father was a student, so he didn't have any money.  That was possible back then, in the economic climate as it was.  No way could people in my parents' position afford to do that now.  Child care and housing costs would be way too prohibitive for a teacher's salary to meet them.

Can you think of a way of implementing that policy without placing the primary carer - most probably the mother - in a position where she's likely to be disadvantaged for the rest of her life in terms of lost opportunities in the workplace?  Seven years out of the workplace while caring for a child is a long time.  

[Piddy]

In the United States there's been a redistribution of wealth to the top incomes for decades now.  It started with tax policy.  Supply side economics or trickle down is a regressive tax policy.  We needed progressive tax policy instead.

Supply side advocates say give rich people tax cuts and they will create jobs.  It's a fallacy.  Demand side economics, where a job is created when there's demand for a good or service and not because the rich get a tax cut is what we needed. 

A major contributor as well is real wages haven't kept up over the decades as well.  So, supply side economics puts the nations wealth in the hands of a few (the rich), while demand side economics puts the wealth in the hands of the masses.  

Also, going from a higher paying manufacturing base economy to a lower based service based economy hasn't helped either.  And as actual work becomes less needed it will only get worse. 

Also, every modern civilized country has a combination of capitalism and socialism.  More socialism will be needed as we transition to a more virtual economy in the future (think driver-less cars).

So, what we have is basically an oligarchy system of government here in the U.S. where the nations wealth is in the hands of the few, who also have the political power as well.  Also, the wealthy have done a good job politically pitting the middle class / working class against the poor.  

The middle class / working class actually have much more in common with the working poor than they do with a billionaire, but their anger is misguided against the poor.  

Wealthy capitalist Nick Hanauer wrote,  "Beware fellow plutocrats the pitchforks are coming.  If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequalities of this economy the pitchforks are coming for us."

"No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality.  In fact there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out."

Edited June 23, 2020 by Piddy

[schlumpy]

26 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

Can you think of a way of implementing that policy without placing the primary carer - most probably the mother - in a position where she's likely to be disadvantaged for the rest of her life in terms of lost opportunities in the workplace?  Seven years out of the workplace while caring for a child is a long time.  

I'm probably the last person to ask for advice on childcare for I have none and have never faced having to work and make sure the kids were safe. I'll have to leave it up to others to provide input. ]

My only real model at the moment are my muslim neighbors who have three kids and mom stays home. I was talking to over fence last year and she complained that her youngest daughter had to go to pre-school when she wanted that time with her. How does she manage to stay home? They have arranged their life to fit their income. 

She's one of the people that takes a hit when the government does a one-size-fits-all program.

[Ellener]

12 hours ago, pepperbird said:

People who drink do so for many reasons. Some are even genetic. An awful lot drink because they enjoy it.
I used to drink every now and again. Not much, just enough to get maybe a bit tipsy. Back in my uni days, we'd have "purple jesus"  parties ( don't ask you don't want to know) and every so often, someone would end up needing to visit the ER. It wasn't because of "society"- it was just that they were stupid kids doing foolish things- just like many kids do.
I agree some drink to excess to self medicate, because they are sad or angry,. but just as many just like to be drunk. I don't know why.

It's a combination of all those factors. A 'habit' structures life, but an 'intoxication habit' likely affects others, plus a handful of substances are addictive after regular use in that the body adapts to them and the person requires them physically to not go into withdrawal symptoms. Prior to that stage alcohol is often extremely enjoyable.

I'll write about the psychology of addiction elsewhere but regarding 'society', working people have been encouraged to alcohol ( and tobacco and benzodiazepine and pain medication ) use and addiction in our culture as a release and to levy taxation and make profitable businesses. 

 

 

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, schlumpy said:

My only real model at the moment are my muslim neighbors who have three kids and mom stays home. I was talking to over fence last year and she complained that her youngest daughter had to go to pre-school when she wanted that time with her. How does she manage to stay home? They have arranged their life to fit their income. 

I'm sure lots of people arrange their lives to fit their income but she is a sample population of one and democracy follows the majority needs and wishes.

Are people required to enroll children in school where you are? It's a choice in the US though the individual family might face some scrutiny from an authority to regulate child protection and education. 'Home-schooling' is fairly common as is delaying admission to school. 

Elizabeth Warren wrote about the effect of 'The Two Income Trap' in 2004 when she was a law professor at Harvard, the pressure for economic stability within the family has driven the societal requirement for out of home childcare. 

[Libby1]

38 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

I'm probably the last person to ask for advice on childcare for I have none and have never faced having to work and make sure the kids were safe. I'll have to leave it up to others to provide input. ]

My only real model at the moment are my muslim neighbors who have three kids and mom stays home. I was talking to over fence last year and she complained that her youngest daughter had to go to pre-school when she wanted that time with her. How does she manage to stay home? They have arranged their life to fit their income. 

She's one of the people that takes a hit when the government does a one-size-fits-all program.

I have the impression you probably live in a nice area.  Your neighbour's husband must be a pretty high earner to be able to support the whole family, pay for housing etc.  That said, wages do seem to generally be a lot higher in the US while housing costs are often lower.  

I keep hearing that lockdown has opened more people's minds up more to the reality that much of what we do work-wise can be done at home...which is probably a potential problem solver for a lot of people.  I've long worked remotely, other than when I've done the odd spell of locum work in places that insisted I be office based.  Not to compare children to dogs (though a lot of dogs do get treated like children) but I recently read something that horrified me.  An article suggested that a dog can easily cost its owner in excess of £33,000 in its lifetime.  I have a dog who has had a couple of costly operations, but her upkeep is nothing like that.  However, it turned out that a lot of this expenditure involved paying professional dogwalkers.

Well, there's another problem that's solved if you're working from home.  No need to fork out a fortune for professional dogwalkers...plus a happier, more well adjusted hound.  We've got fantastic technology available to us these days, which makes working from home far easier.  With most jobs inevitably there are going to be times that you have to be based in an office or elsewhere outside the home.  I couldn't have client meetings in my home, for instance, but a lot of the time there's only a need for limited face to face meetings and much can be done over the phone.  If somebody has to spend maybe 10 hours a week in tasks that can't be carried out at home...well, child minding costs to cover those periods will be a lot more manageable than they are if somebody is based outside the home full time.   Plus, as you mentioned (more in relation to kids on school buses) a hell of a lot of time is wasted in commuting.  Home-working cuts down the time, stress and costs incurred by endless commuting.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Libby1

[schlumpy]

44 minutes ago, Ellener said:

Are people required to enroll children in school where you are? It's a choice in the US though the individual family might face some scrutiny from an authority to regulate child protection and education. 'Home-schooling' is fairly common as is delaying admission to school. 

Yep, it's by law. Have to enroll.

The teacher's union backed the legislation.

 

[Ellener]

2 hours ago, schlumpy said:

Yep, it's by law. Have to enroll.

The teacher's union backed the legislation.

 

Huh. I've only lived in the UK or US where it's down to the parent, though like I say they may have to demonstrate the child's welfare including education.

I do think things require a degree of flexibility to accommodate all and be successful, the teacher's union should incorporate that. Write to them?!

Sometimes people get so blinded by their own point of view or agenda they cannot see clearly or become zealous; someone with no axe to grind always needs to be consulted as part of the work...

🪓

Edited June 23, 2020 by Ellener
spelling

[Ellener]

2 hours ago, Libby1 said:

the reality that much of what we do work-wise

I think that is going to be so important going forward, people need to find what their community needs and the community needs to recognise their work and to balance everyone together, so all people can support their family and find what we Americans call life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

 

[pepperbird]

12 hours ago, schlumpy said:

I don't know when real reform that gets results, other then promises, will ever materialize. The forces of gain without blame are strong.

 

You make some great points! I think Latin should be taught again because it's used in science, law etc. and is a good foundation for learning french, Spanish, etc.

I would love to see more time paid to life skills, even if it's just a few minutes in each class. Budgeting, how credit works, how to set up a basic home for yourself, public speaking, that sort of thing.

Years ago, they made a public information film called "the dropout". It was incredibly progressive for it's time, and , at least to me, addressed some of the same issues that are impacting education today.
If you'd like to watch it, here's a link. You might find it interesting.

 

[schlumpy]

Thank you Pepperbird. I remember these type of documentary films from the 60's. You watch and realize that this a persistent problem for every generation. There are no new ideas and our new approaches to education have only rearranged the deck chairs. One thing we are better at is spotting kids with dyslexia and cognitive disorders.

Unfortunately there are other forces at work that have noting to do with the welfare of students. Administrators and politicians are under pressure to produce good numbers. That means good grades and a high graduation rate.

Policy has pushed kids who cannot read through the grades with social promotion.

You ability to make money and to improve that wealth gap, that is uppermost on Libby's social ills list, is severely curtailed if your comprehension level never gets past a Dick and Jane reader.

My solution would be to stop a child's education and concentrate on only reading until their comprehension is brought up to grade level. My reasoning is that without understanding what they are reading, trying to teach students other subjects is a waste of everyone's time. They will just give up and fail without the ability to understand and absorb what they are reading.

This solution is considered cruel and insensitive because it ignores the social aspect of school which for many people is just as important as academics.

Would it not be refreshing to see people protesting for higher literacy rates? If I ever saw that, I would truly believe we have taken a tremendous turn for the better as a human society.

People who can read - more often succeed. 

[pepperbird]

34 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Thank you Pepperbird. I remember these type of documentary films from the 60's. You watch and realize that this a persistent problem for every generation. There are no new ideas and our new approaches to education have only rearranged the deck chairs. One thing we are better at is spotting kids with dyslexia and cognitive disorders.

Unfortunately there are other forces at work that have noting to do with the welfare of students. Administrators and politicians are under pressure to produce good numbers. That means good grades and a high graduation rate.

Policy has pushed kids who cannot read through the grades with social promotion.

You ability to make money and to improve that wealth gap, that is uppermost on Libby's social ills list, is severely curtailed if your comprehension level never gets past a Dick and Jane reader.

My solution would be to stop a child's education and concentrate on only reading until their comprehension is brought up to grade level. My reasoning is that without understanding what they are reading, trying to teach students other subjects is a waste of everyone's time. They will just give up and fail without the ability to understand and absorb what they are reading.

This solution is considered cruel and insensitive because it ignores the social aspect of school which for many people is just as important as academics.

Would it not be refreshing to see people protesting for higher literacy rates? If I ever saw that, I would truly believe we have taken a tremendous turn for the better as a human society.

People who can read - more often succeed. 

My son is highly intelligent, but has some significant developmental delays. I've volunteered at his school, and after doing so, I'm kind of conflicted.

Integration ( used to be called mainstreaming) can be a wonderful thing, but, at least here, the supports really aren't in place to make it work. Many students have really complex needs. For example, my son is in high school, and his classmates range from "typical" students to ones who are special needs or others who are refugees or otherwise new to the country and don't read/speak English or French. There's kids who are being abused at home, are living in poverty and don't even have food on their table, others have parents with addiction issues or they may have health issues themselves. Teaching can become less about academics and more about being a quasi social worker.

I don't think that system serves anyone all that well. If mainstreaming is seen as the way to go, then  the funding and other supports need to be in place to make it work. 

[Libby1]

On 6/23/2020 at 12:40 AM, pepperbird said:

People who drink do so for many reasons. Some are even genetic. An awful lot drink because they enjoy it.
I used to drink every now and again. Not much, just enough to get maybe a bit tipsy. Back in my uni days, we'd have "purple jesus"  parties ( don't ask you don't want to know) and every so often, someone would end up needing to visit the ER. It wasn't because of "society"- it was just that they were stupid kids doing foolish things- just like many kids do.
I agree some drink to excess to self medicate, because they are sad or angry,. but just as many just like to be drunk. I don't know why.

Agreed.  A lot of it comes down to peer pressure.  Knocking back three drinks in a row, doing shots, being laughed at if you can't hold your drink...

I used to often not drink when I went out, and people would really nag me for it.  In fact, they still do - but not to the point they did when I was younger.  Not to say I didn't have plenty of nights when I did get drunk, but just not nearly to the extent that some people I knew did (ie people who would, when they were students, spend pretty much the entire weekend drunk or recovering from a hangover - and also have a couple of week nights where they'd get drunk).  I'm still vaguely in touch with some of those people, and they're just normal adults now.  Getting hammered was for when they were in their late teens and twenties...and maybe the odd regressive "going back to our clubbing days" binge in their/our early thirties.  And I think that's probably what the majority of cases that end up in A & E are about.  Binge drinking on nights out, and a lot of young people who just don't know their limits or who are letting peer pressure push them beyond their limits.

[Ellener]

3 hours ago, schlumpy said:

Would it not be refreshing to see people protesting for higher literacy rates?

Loads of us did thirty years ago in the UK, and signed up to be tutors. 

The only new idea @schlumpy is that there are no mystery short cuts and easy answers though people keep looking for them! Do the work and don't be looking for a 'they' to do it, if there's no one else it might be down to me...I don't remember who said that but it's world-changing.

Every library here has a literacy tutoring program for adults. I imagine they have wobbled a bit with the pandemic and now will be switching to online. Some of the tutors become friends and part of support systems.

There's been a big movement here for ensuring all children have access to home internet and a computer. It's become imperative now they are all home.

@Libby1 a lot older people will have responded to the pandemic by drinking, it feels like fun then a stress-release coping mechanism, then the crutch becomes a habit and ultimately physical dependence.