Equality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

Proof the "man" is lazy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

Depends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot argue everything you posted, but I think part of the problem is the Teachers union. You said right wing people blame them but they have chosen to try to be "change agents" for the advancement of the left. If they are week and ineffective its at least in part because they teach ideology rather than algebra.

Education systems in many other countries, some of which you named as better than ours, are very outcome based. You are being directed into future career paths at a much earlier age, and your education tailored to those ends. Do we want that here, where your 8Th grade scores determine how far in a university you can go, or begin to shape your hole life. I'm not sure I like that, but it is efficient.

I am in favor of higher pay for teachers, but let that be outcome based by the market place. If they provide better education, perhaps it will provide a better tax base, without raising taxes, to pay them from. I will bring back the old voucher idea, hated by the left, because it would allow many people who cannot now afford to, to choose the education of their children that THEY ARE PAYING FOR>

Get rid of tenure, if someone comes along and teaches algebra better than you, they should have your job. Very few teaching jobs (the Just the facts type of classes) should not be outcome based.

finely, require standards, make them high, and hold people to them. If you cannot compete in the American Educational system, as a student or teacher, you should be passed up. A friend of mines son failed almost every high school class and would get top scored in Adult School. I got a hold of one of his tests in adult school. I hadn't studied history in over 30 years and the test was beyond belief ridiculously simple. yet he gets A's. At the same time we are so afraid of offending children and their parents (are both the children and parents who are offended stupid) that it is now almost impossible to read a Th grade report card. no one can fail now, and therefore no one had a desire to achieve.

In my law enforcement academy I strove to be the best in a class of over 400. I worked very hard at it, and am still disappointed that my 96.14 overall score was second. I say that because now, they don't even tell the students how well they did. only pass or fail. What in the world is wrong with standards, and honoring achievements.

(P.S. I did tie for "top gun" on the shooting courses, as a consolation prise, so that was nice.)

I do agree with you that we like low taxes, but perhaps you are also right on our foolish pork barrel spending. I'll give you that there is room for improvement, but don't say the unions don't hold a very large share, perhaps the lions share of what problems there are in America's education system.

The thing is, no competition, just a monolithic secure bloc, makes for poor performance, not just in teaching, but in any field of endeavor, even some which are hard to quantify.

Even my own, (the prison system) very hard to have competition in could be improved by performance based outcomes. Seniority should not be determined by just time, but a combination of time, tested competence, performance evaluations, and physical fitness. This would both honor time, but also make learning, quality work, and effort a factor too. Have these both effect pay and posting and I would expect to see a vast improvement in the qualify of our staff, many who are already excellent. If you wonder what I think of private prisons, i cannot say. So far i have seen that they get to operate under separate rules and laws rather than the state systems, and in CA, they just return any problem, or medically expensive inmates back the state. The recent outsourcing of CA inmates to other state systems may be a good IDEA. I said earlier that public entities should be able to compete with each other for dollars, (if Reedley's department of public works can repair roads cheaper than Fresno's, they should be able to operate in Fresno.) just Ideas, probable not workable, but fun to think about.

I apologize again for the ramblings. I just came off of two days of double shifts.

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem
Education is preparing children to be good adults. The good english school converts dirty uncouth boys into educated gentlemen. As Sadistic pointed our, better morale equates to better learning.

In previous Kendal message you espoused charity. Now you appear to forsake charity. Which is it?Government should proved the basics, charity the extras. Feed the orphans from government funds, send them to Disneyland with charity donations.

I am sorry but you are going to have to support that claim.
USA is the top foreign aid donor nation by volume http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...d-donor#source This is no surprise given the size of the country. If you go per capita then it is at or on the bottom of the rankings. I cannot quickly find the OECD donor ranking table but going from the above CIA factbook source USA donated 23 billion compared to UK 12bn. The USA population is 5 times that of UK but donates only twice as much. American media likes to tell how generous the USA is but OECD stats show a different story - especially when you consider much of the aid ends up going US companies in Aid for Trade deals.

Poverty in the US is not the same as poverty in Botswana!. Nor is poverty the same in Luxembourg as in the US, Their per capita income is twice the US
In terms of food calories (for example) it is the same everywhere. The cost differs but not the need.

But you choose to only consider your views just because they are your views.
Not at all. I understand your point. You want to reduce government spending and taxation and you think that if forced the lazy man will work. I have a different view. No matter how much at fault a person may be for their misfortune, it does not affect my moral obligation to help him. And if his misfortune is in part due to a failure on my part then my obligation is greater.

But they learn no such thing from schools. In fact in majority they learn that the world OWES them. A living, a life, anything they desire.
Not a good testimonial for the US education system is it. Perhaps this ties in with your previous comment abouti it not being a school's job to teach self esteem.

we were discussing education and the (bad) influence of the teacher unions is appropo.
I was discussing Equality. Have I mistead the thread subject title.

That is silly! You are proposing communes.
I was not proposing, This was an accomodation for those who seek to minimize government spending. A man needs shelter and it must be provided. Put him in shared accomodation or a hostel if you must but not on the street without a roof over his head. Silly is better than cruel.

If you were quoting somebody you should have done that rather than make them your words.
Are you telling me how I should or should not compose posts. I built the words and concept into my own sentence in order to make it more applicable and understandable for you than the original. This is common practice in the US, especially with politicians. When Martin Luther King talked about jobs in his famous I have a Dream speech did he quote Shakespeares Richard III when he said "this sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

No matter how much at fault a person may be for their misfortune, it does not affect my moral obligation to help him. And if his misfortune is in part due to a failure on my part then my obligation is greater.

---

While I can agree with some of your points, and I can understand your desire to help people, this statement is something I cannot agree with. I've been arguing against this kind of thing for years here, and it still goes on.

Using a strict interpretation of your comment, if I should come home to find someone ransacking my home because he has no money, I should not only allow him to continue, I should help him by pointing out the more valuable items in my home, or the location of any money I have stashed away. And if he should stumble over a carelessly placed box and hurt himself, I should contact the rescue services and have him taken to the hospital for treatment at my expense, of course.

Now I know you will say that this is a rather extreme interpretation, but how is it any different from that same man being given goods and services, paid for with my tax dollars, while he sits at home watching Oprah or Judge Judy or any of the half-dozen premium channels he subscribes to,on his wide-screen, high-definition, plasma TV? All while contacting his friends on his high-end cell phone to tell them about the latest government give-away program they should get into.

Are there truly poor people in this country? Absolutely. Despite two hundred plus years of effort, there are still poor Americans. Despite more than ten thousand years of effort around the world, there are still poor people. There will always be poor people. Many, even most, may be poor through no fault of their own. I feel sorry for them. I don't, however, feel responsible for them. I don't feel any 'moral' imperative to help them. The only 'moral' responsibility I have is to help myself, and my family, to keep our heads above water without dragging someone else down with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

USA is the top foreign aid donor nation by volume http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...d-donor#source This is no surprise given the size of the country.

---

What might surprise you though is that most US foreign aid donations come from private citizens rather than the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

What does "weed out" mean exactly.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem
Education is preparing children to be good adults. The good english school converts dirty uncouth boys into educated gentlemen. As Sadistic pointed our, better morale equates to better learning.

---

And how much influence are the parents and other family members to have in their morale and self esteem?

[QUOTE=Kendal;865276]Government should proved the basics, charity the extras. Feed the orphans from government funds, send them to Disneyland with charity donations.[QUOTE]

Just found this today. Could not believe it. Disneyland is a right!!!

How many of those 12 dollar hot dogs will the taxpayers have to buy.

I imagine its only a matter of time before someone demands this in America. It's easy to be silly with the money others have earned.

Hey, I'm a crabby old man, would that count as "difficult personal circumstances." :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

What might surprise you though is that most US foreign aid donations come from private citizens rather than the government.

---

I wonder if they count the costs of our other expences which benefit others. Our huge support of the UN, and those countries which lie under our defence umbrella and thus benefit. I'm sure there is more but I cannot think of them now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canyon

It's easy to be silly with the money others have earned.

---

It also seems to be easy (for some) to demand what others have earned.