Equality?

[Kendal]

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified.

Have you understood my post correctly. My point was how the higher taxed upper middle classes complain they "work hard" for their money as if they are the only ones who do. I was saying the lower and middle class work just as hard, as you yourself confirm pisshing 500lb cages around. I would have thought you would resent the implication only the high earners work and not the lower paid.

As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon HuntsmanSr who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about ...list of the uber-rich philanthropists?

You are talking about how they spend the money once they have it. I am talking about how they got it in the first place. It's a bit like the Godfather movie where Michael Corleone donates a million to the church - good man but how did he get the money. I am not suggesting every super rich is a gangster and dont have time to go through backgrounds of a list of philanthropists but I am sure a large number have been devious.

Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work.

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans.......

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

[DuncanONeil]

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[DuncanONeil]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

[SadisticNature]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

You said; “Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world.”, and later; “The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.”

Now you may want to say that you were speaking of University, but that you did not say. That little point aside grades below university still have a cost that averages approximately $10,000 per year. Our total expenditures in education are 3.6 times greater than the nearest country. Apparently no one spends more than we do, however, I do agree smarter is better than what is being done.

So as I said money is not the solution!

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

First of all I referred to speed reading a specific message. This is not skimming! You were not skimmed!

Can we say personal attack?

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[Kendal]

She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

[Kendal]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[steelish]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

Of course education plays a very large role in being a doctor, lawyer or other such profession - but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now. Our current problem is unemployment across the board, but those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors, working at MacDonalds, etc. pass up those jobs in the hopes that the perfect job for them will fall in their lap. I see "Help Wanted" and "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.

As to your second statement; therein lies the misconception. We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else". This is the attack that is being used by people who want a nanny state. Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be? There are a select few who will still be responsible, independent people, but that will be rare. Most of them will hold out their hand every time they need something. A strong nation is a nation full of people who can stand up for themselves. People who are not only independent, but caring. America has always been a nation of such in the past. I hate that we are turning into a nation of dependency.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

"Balancing" the workforce through use of regulations and legislation in my opinion was not the route to take. The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs. Remember, we're talking about legislation that started in the 60s. The problems faced then are hardly comparable to what life is like now. Education is more readily accessible to all ethnic groups whereas in the 60s, such was not the case.

[Kendal]

but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.

To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?

I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now.

I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.

those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors

If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.

We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else".

No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.

Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be?

You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.

The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs.

Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we

[Canyon]

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

At work there is a Supervisor who insists that Affirmative Action is necessary because how can you expect in one generation to overcome the deficiencies of the past. We have some "spirited" conversations over this. He thinks it should go on for ever. I say people have had the opportunity to prove they can do the job with government support, now let them prove it without it. He is always angry claiming African Americans do are not properly represented in our Department. He refused to take into account our Peace Officer status, and firearms requirements. the exceptionally large numbers of blacks committing crimes, which disqualify them from this type of job are not my fault. Looking at from a law abiding point of view blacks are overrepresented, as they reflect nearly the population, not the law abiding population. I think he is wrong about his desire for Affirmative Action.

I guess I'm much harder... Take the job, do the job, or lose the job. If you cannot pass our academy or do our job because they don't serve collard greens in the snack bar, that is stupid. Yet you see that type of argument all the time.

Amazing, how even with furloughs, our California Department of Motor Vehicles improve service for a short time, when they thought Arnold would lay people off based on performance, rather than seniority. I know that is not possible but I love the thought. Not only should they use performance, but they should go back for years, before it even became an issue, as performance then speaks to character, not seniority.

steelish I do congratulate you on the jobs you have held without a degree. Performance can go a long way in advancement, for performers.

In a job I had once, I made wheelchairs. My peers always told me that I should not work so hard because if I had a bad, or occasionally less productive day management would notice and come down on me. Everyone has bad days, and management never questioned me if I fell short. I felt I should give them the best days work I could everyday. Thats how I was raised, and between my upbringing and Military time, I really cannot think any other way. In the military there were standards and you met them or exceeded them and I still have trouble dealing with the civilian standard of mediocrity. I know now as a Supervisor myself, how much management at that plant I worked at must have appreciated the extra effort I put in. Often at the bottom you think it is not noticed, but, I assure you, if your first line supervisor is worth anything, it is.

Having said that. many jobs have an educational requirement. Education is always an advantage. If I could go back in time and start over, I would graduate high school with a 4.0, have gone to west point, and pursued my military career from the returning side of the salute. Hard work can take you far, but even CEO's in America who started up the corporate ladder without education, generally get some.

[steelish]

To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?

I never said we couldn't discuss economic or social classes. All I pointed out was MY interpretation of what you said. You can explain and explain...how I feel and view what you said will still be the same.

I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.

And now you're being deliberately snarky. I am not implying that we've achieved perfection. My point is that America has equal opportunity. We cannot MAKE people view everything the same. (obviously...otherwise there would be no point in discussions or even threads like this). It doesn't matter how many regulations are in place to dictate how people should treat/view others. Until attitudes change things will be "unequal". (and the only way to change attitudes is by the example of those who are discriminated against) It doesn't matter what the discrimination is based upon, attitudes can change.

If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.

Oh, so what you're implying is only the lower classes sweep floors or bag groceries? A janitor in the Post Office where I work used to be in Marketing and yes, has a degree. She said she took the job because it's so hard to find employment. And in Florida, it is. Our unemployment is over 10%. The job fairs I attended had well over 2,000 job seekers vying for what was available. What is wrong with taking a job you are overqualified for? Most employers know what life is like right now and understand.

No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.

Again, that's not what I said. America is a land of choices. You choose not to take a lower paid position because you feel your educational level is above it...so be it. That is your choice. It's not that I have no sympathy for them, but if they come along with hands held out for $$ from the government while ignoring available jobs, well then yes, I will be unsympathetic.

being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.

I know what the programs are for. But they've backfired. What we have now is two generations of Americans who have been raised on Welfare. People who feel that they should be able to live their life collecting what is "due" to them. These same people who drive Cadillac Escalades and wear designer clothes, yet buy their food with food stamps and get a government payout every month. Before anyone scoffs or roll their eyes at what I "think"....it's not what I "think" but what I know. I see them with my own eyes. Hell, I even have a couple of cousins who live this way.

You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.

So you never did chores around the house when you were a kid to get a weekly allowance? While I was growing up, the usual chores (helping with dishes, helping keep the house clean, etc.) didn't result in allowance. However, taking initiative and pulling weeds from the vegetable garden, or mowing the lawn (once I reached 12 years old) gained me $5 weekly. I liked having my own money so much I got a paper route at 13. I'd like to think I would have been that way without learning the value of working hard to earn money, but who knows...

Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we

Ooooo. More snarkiness.
Many of the available scholarships have to be earned. Even the financial aid ones have to be earned through grades.

BTW - Your analogy is lost on me (the 30yo man with the 3yo child) because there are children of all ages in school. It's not as if an entire generation is lost because all kids are 3yo at the same time. A generation might be skipped only in his family. Again...he chose to have a child at the age of 27 (that's when I had mine). How does he get condemned? His child needs no scholarship for basic education, it's free. His child has 12 years in which to apply himself in school and get grades good enough to qualify for a financial aid scholarship. Not only that, but in Florida, he (the man) can apply for Florida Prepaid College Tuition and lock in the college tuition rates while his child is 3, pay monthly into the plan, then when his child graduates high school college will be prepaid. He (or his child) won't have to pay the tuition rates that will be charged when his child is college aged.

[DuncanONeil]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges. Comparisons are not possible in this example.

[DuncanONeil]

About that standard of living! There again we have to get into definitions. As I said before 46% of the official poor in the US own their own home.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[Kendal]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

[Kendal]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!
I do not know the american scholarship system and am also unsure if I understand your point correctly. Personally I do not think the principle - you only get what you work for - is the only principle at work. Often the benefits we received are not the fruits of our labor but the legacy of our parents. I had a good education but did not work for it in the sense you may be implying. The result of that education is an awareness of obligations and my duty to give to my children the same or better than what I received. I do not teach my kid he has to do this to get that. I teach him we do this because it is the right thing to do, it is our way, it is what makes us who we are.

Let's not forget the country benefits from education. and the government is repaid with the higher taxes paid on the higher wages the educated get. The Chinese work bloody hard but China is poorer than USA. The better education in America creates better skilled workers who create better technologies which increase national wealth. The tax the government receives from it's higher paid better skilled workforce is more than from poorly educated and low paid Chinese. I believe education should be free for all. It is not a cost, it is an investment and a bloody good one at that.

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges.
I agree. Steelish introduced the climb up the corporate ladder point. I moved focus away because the number of people who succeed without education is small compared to the people for whom it would be impossible to succeed without education. The apples dont matter compared to the oranges.

PS - I think povery can be defined in terms on the minimum needed to live ie shelter, food, health etc. The country must provide this minimum life support no matter how undeserving the recipients may be. Above that minimum - okay that's a different kettle of apples.

[DuncanONeil]

Kendal, I think you are too fixated on material v, immaterial. You completely miss the point that reward is reward!
It can not be reward unless and until you have done something to earn it. The earning it is the hard work. Were the altruistic people you mention not schooled in the work - reward relationship as youth they would not be capable of deriving the satisfaction that they do in their personal accomplishments.
Further it is acceptable to approach an adult from the aspect of altruism. But children, the ones taught, as we discussed grow from the self to the group. They are all self-centered in the beginning.

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

[steelish]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

That may not have been your intent, but you did so just the same. We were allowed to be kids. We played, we had friends. We also earned money when we saw something in the store we wanted but my mother could not afford. My mother raised four kids by herself. My father left when I was 9. We did what we could as we got old enough to do things to earn a touch of money. Mowing a yard for a neighbor, weeding my grandfather's 16 acre vegetable garden, etc.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

You defined "them" previously. You're statement was: "What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death."

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

There might be many offended. I never said EVERYONE who is raised on welfare continues the tradition. However, many do. I see it. I have family members who live it. My aunt raised four girls on her own. She was on welfare due to Lupus. She couldn't work. My mother helped when she could. So did all of us kids. Two of her children worked hard in school and went on to college. Two decided to sit around and do nothing although they are able-bodied. They live on welfare. They are raising kids of their own. Some of their kids seem to have the same mindset as their mothers.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

Not so. It's an analogy. You're taking it so literally.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

Seems as if you and I will go round and round. See above explanation.

[DuncanONeil]

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued. I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!