Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Rich getting richer, hard to get ahead, etc...


655 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#101 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23173 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:37 AM

To suggest we should just be happy we aren't living in some war torn third world country is also BS.

 

Uh, have you been to one of these to compare?  It doesn't even need to be war-torn TBH.

 

First World problems (what we're talking about in this thread) are just that - First World problems.


  • transientChris, edelweiss, maize and 2 others like this

#102 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26502 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:39 AM

So true!

 

My middle child is going into 7th grade, and she is my most extroverted child. I have always kept it in the back of my head that maybe it would be better for her to go to school. We cannot afford private school, so I started to really look at our local district. I'm starting to think I will have to find something else - sending her to this school will not give her a head start in life. This is an amalgam of 2 high schools (the rich one and the poor one); we are, of course, zoned for the poorer one - the stats are even lower for that school.

 

According to last year's stats, 24% of students are "ready for the next level". Yes, that is actually less than a quarter of the student body. Only 2% of students "exceeded" (highest level of achievement), but 29% "did not meet expectations" (lowest level). 43% of students attending college after graduation require some form of remediation. There is only an 81% 4 year graduation rate. 

 

This is actually considered one of the better districts in the area in that we have people moving from the city next to us for the school district. It's not an inner city school; it is predominately white and fairly middle class (42% free/reduced lunch). I laugh to think of anyone graduating and attending Ivy League.

 

Edited: typed public for private

 

I guess I'm glad I graduated before all those statistics were everywhere.  I'm pretty sure my high school had a laughable record by some standards, but I would not laugh to think of anyone graduating from there and doing well.  Heck, my uncle graduated in an inner city reform school and ended up a successful doctor.  Never say never.
 


  • transientChris, DawnM, kitten18 and 1 other like this

#103 DawnM

DawnM

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22004 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:42 AM

I guess I'm glad I graduated before all those statistics were everywhere.  I'm pretty sure my high school had a laughable record by some standards, but I would not laugh to think of anyone graduating from there and doing well.  Heck, my uncle graduated in an inner city reform school and ended up a successful doctor.  Never say never.
 

 

As long as there isn't a huge safety issue (huge gang presence, big drug problem, etc....) , I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.



#104 Murphy101

Murphy101

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15746 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:50 AM

I guess I'm glad I graduated before all those statistics were everywhere. I'm pretty sure my high school had a laughable record by some standards, but I would not laugh to think of anyone graduating from there and doing well. Heck, my uncle graduated in an inner city reform school and ended up a successful doctor. Never say never.


Oh good lord. It's like peopke are being purposely obtuse in this thread.

No one is laughing that someone might miraculously rise from those educational depths.
Nothing but kudos and applause for those few from me.
But it is laughable to suggest it is *likely*, because it flatout it is not likely at all and it would be delusional to say otherwise given the cold hard facts.
  • Scarlett, Eliana, beckyjo and 3 others like this

#105 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26502 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:53 AM

Oh good lord. It's like peopke are being purposely obtuse in this thread.

No one is laughing that someone might miraculously rise from those educational depths.
Nothing but kudos and applause for those few from me.
But it is laughable to suggest it is *likely*, because it flatout it is not likely at all and it would be delusional to say otherwise given the cold hard facts.

 

There isn't a statistically high likelihood, but it can and does happen.  And that is the main thing that good students in those schools have to hold onto.  So I don't understand the insistence on crushing that hope.  What good does it do?


  • transientChris and kitten18 like this

#106 jdahlquist

jdahlquist

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1721 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:54 AM

Not at all like that. It wouldn't happen over night or even in just in a year. But if zoning laws were changed and city planners mandated to accommodate diverse income levels, over time, we could see a positive shift. It wouldn't even have to include tearing down homes. Something as simple as allowing huge homes to accommodate more than one family would help. They could be converted easily into multi dwellings. Rent caps would help. Insisting that transit systems have to be accommodated even in wealthier areas would also help.

This is interesting and making me wonder, given that zoning laws vary widely across the US, do the zoning laws really impact this.  In some areas of the country, large houses have been converted into multi-family housing.  

 

I grew up in a smaller town where everyone--regardless of income or socioeconomic status--went to the same school,  My kids went to public elementary school in what was considered a wealthy district (kids whose family's were on the "wealthiest families in Texas" list; a U.S. president's great grandchildren went to school with them, etc.) but over 1/3 of the children in the school qualified for free lunches.  That is less than the state %, but still points to a wide range within the school.  A community in near downtown San Antonio has been designed this way--a certain percentage of the housing must go to low income and the idea was to attract high income professionals working in the downtown area to provide a diversity; it has not been successful. 



#107 Murphy101

Murphy101

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15746 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:58 AM

But you are talking about dense areas of population and so tearing down would be necessary. In NY, LA, Chicago, the buildings are already built and close together. There is no new community being built within the cities. Individual houses maybe, but not a full section.

I don't see this ever happening. Gentrification, yes, but changing the entire system, no.

Our area is a nicer community. We live 10 miles from the nearest public transit system. Since transits are county run, our county has said they won't pay, so we aren't getting one. And even if we did, the narrow 2 lane roads and houses spaced far apart would be an issue.

But I don't agree that my area needs to accommodate low income housing.


Why do you have no problem with rich people taking homes from poor people (which is what gentrification is) but you don't want low income people living in your area?

Your area is likely not going to stay looking like that. The houses won't always be far apart. The road won't always be narrow 2 lanes. The question is simply how to develop communities to accommodate everyone in the community, not just the wealthier. Even big cities are constantly developing. Rebuilding, adding to, rezoning and more.
  • Eliana, TechWife, mamaraby and 2 others like this

#108 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23173 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:01 AM

Oh good lord. It's like peopke are being purposely obtuse in this thread.

No one is laughing that someone might miraculously rise from those educational depths.
Nothing but kudos and applause for those few from me.
But it is laughable to suggest it is *likely*, because it flatout it is not likely at all and it would be delusional to say otherwise given the cold hard facts.

 

No one says it IS likely.  We are saying it's possible given the right attitude and by making connections - actually doing something.  Since getting the winning lottery ticket has lower odds - as does getting legislation changed in the near future - giving people suggestions on what has worked before and can still work is far better than anyone remaining in self pity about what reality has dealt them.  What reality has dealt them is also often best looked at in perspective.  It helps folks realize they aren't really trying to get to (or near) the top from the bottom.


  • transientChris, kitten18, Serenade and 3 others like this

#109 goldberry

goldberry

    In a Handbasket

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9687 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:04 AM

QFT

 

Aside, thanks to this board for keeping me updated on the current abbreviations.  I am forced to stop and look them up to understand the conversation.  This one has two options apparently

 

    QFT. Quoted For Truth -or- Quit F***ing Talking

 

I'm going to assume Sadie meant the first one!  :lol:


  • transientChris, Lakeside, Heigh Ho and 2 others like this

#110 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26502 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:07 AM

In my area, they have incentives to build high-income housing in low-income neighborhoods, with the intention of improving the general condition and feel of the area.  [Arguable] problem with that is, it uses taxpayer money to subsidize the rich.  The families living there don't expect the inner city schools to meet their kids' educational needs; at a minimum they will pay for supplemental education, but mostly they will choose private schools.  So the impact is limited.  Might still be a good idea.

 

I frequently drive through a fairly rich neighborhood - homes of doctors etc.  Large houses.  Families locate there for the excellent school system among other reasons.  If you stuck some multi-family housing in the middle of the neighhborhood, here's what I think would happen: people would sell their homes to multi-family developers and find another place to live.  If these folks had wanted to live in a diverse area, they would have bought in a diverse area.  You can't force people of means to live with people they didn't choose as neighbors.  If you made all cities include minimum multifamily units, these folks would move to villages or rural areas.  At a minimum they would choose private schools if they felt the public school standards were changing to accommodate a lower average ability.

 

I think you'd have better luck starting with school quality, which will attract people with big dreams for their kids.


  • reefgazer likes this

#111 Murphy101

Murphy101

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15746 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:10 AM

There isn't a statistically high likelihood, but it can and does happen. And that is the main thing that good students in those schools have to hold onto. So I don't understand the insistence on crushing that hope. What good does it do?


Who the heck said to crush their hope?! What the hell people? Are you purposely being obtuse?

No one wants to crush that hope, I want to make it a more realistic likelihood!!

I wouldn't crush the hope of having a winning power ball lotto ticket like someone else did that one or two times, but I don't think pointing out the odds against them is hope crushing either. Pointing out things that might be more helpful to them is not hope crushing. Pointing out a system that expects all of them to win the lotto or be deemed lazy, stupid, ungrateful, and irresponsible is an unjust system and that as a very wealthy nation we can and should make a better system is also not hope crushing.
  • Scarlett, Eliana, mamaraby and 2 others like this

#112 goldberry

goldberry

    In a Handbasket

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9687 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:13 AM

combined with high quality education regardless of zip code.  Others think low taxes, small government, and a free market will make things better for everyone. 

 

The idea that a free market would create a higher quality of education regardless of zip code is ridiculous and laughable.  That is why when people suggest things like that, I truly doubt their sincerity.  

 

I fully recognize that people have different ideas about how things should happen, and I am open to hearing different ideas.  It's not different ideas that bother me if those ideas can be shown to have some likelihood of success toward the stated goal.  Because otherwise, yes, I doubt the sincerity behind it.


  • Eliana, TechWife, mamaraby and 2 others like this

#113 Murphy101

Murphy101

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15746 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:13 AM

Aside, thanks to this board for keeping me updated on the current abbreviations. I am forced to stop and look them up to understand the conversation. This one has two options apparently

QFT. Quoted For Truth -or- Quit F***ing Talking

I'm going to assume Sadie meant the first one! :lol:


I had to look it up too. Since she also liked the post, I assumed the first too.😄
  • goldberry and mamaraby like this

#114 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26502 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:14 AM

There's always room for improvement, but it helps to start from a realistic picture of where we are, and also what really matters.  Starting out with unduly negative terms (or unduly positive ones) will result in going around in circles.  Likewise wondering why everyone on earth can't have what the richest folks have.



#115 Artichoke

Artichoke

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1379 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:20 AM

I had no idea what to call this thread. Random thoughts from my shower??

True story. There is a wealthy family. They paid for their kids college, helped them get started with their first house, etc. Which is great and I'd love to do it too (but can't).

 

<SNIP>

Idk. It is kind of demoralizing.

 

 

Yep, some days it does seem unfair and demoralizing.    As pp have said,  there are  many ways that we can support our children some monetary and some not.   Don't sell yourself short, there's probably a lot you can do to help your dc get launched in life that doesn't require extra expense:  work with dc on raising ACT/SAT scores, focus on PSAT for a shot at National Merit, help dc build an impressive resume with academics, leadership, and community service.   If you want to give more financial support,  many of us choose to go back to work at least part-time when the kids are older just to help with increasing educational expenses.   Some of my IRL  friends have found clerical work at local universities so their children qualify for discounted tuition.   There's been many times that I've wished that I could just write a check for something, but it just wasn't possible.  There are lots of days that I dislike needing to be frugal or want a nicer home or a newer car, but I try to remind myself of the long term goal of changing our family tree with both finances and personal relationships.   Yes, we do own an investment property but   it's taken us almost thirty years to get to that point.   Best wishes and encouragement as you find a way that works for you and yours.   :grouphug:

 

 


Edited by Artichoke, 16 July 2017 - 11:22 AM.

  • transientChris, Frances, beckyjo and 3 others like this

#116 HomeAgain

HomeAgain

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3385 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:22 AM

There are studies that show that low income housing (section 8) in high income neighborhoods have a positive effect on the low income families.  There are also studies to show the opposite, especially when the rich fight with money: having separate doors in apartment buildings for those who pay the full rate, increasing public school costs, etc.

 

It's been my experience that no matter what, people will fight to keep an appearance of what they have and actively fight lower income inclusion.  I lived in Podunkville, Tx.  It's a town where people don't get out, have no desire to, and are fiercely proud.  A group home for mentally disabled adults was zoned into our neighborhood and people went to war over the inclusion of 4 adults and 2 caregivers.  They didn't want it bringing down the neighborhood.  No matter that you couldn't tell where they would be living (the house was exactly like the rest).  They want the appearance.  My son's (Christian-oriented) school had a very serious meeting about the inclusion of boys who were living in a children's home.  Parents went nuts.  The school was very careful to say that even though they were poor and had every right to go to the school, they would uphold them to standards.  It was appalling. 

 


  • Murphy101, TechWife, frogger and 1 other like this

#117 Murphy101

Murphy101

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15746 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:23 AM

The idea that a free market would create a higher quality of education regardless of zip code is ridiculous and laughable. That is why when people suggest things like that, I truly doubt their sincerity.

I fully recognize that people have different ideas about how things should happen, and I am open to hearing different ideas. It's not different ideas that bother me if those ideas can be shown to have some likelihood of success toward the stated goal. Because otherwise, yes, I doubt the sincerity behind it.


I sincerely have zero problem stating that I don't think everything should be purely free market run.

I don't think whether someone gets life saving medications should depend on whether it's profitable to someone else to save their life.

I don't think whether someone can attain a quality basic education or even higher education should be based on whether they are lucky enough to be deemed worth the expense.
  • Rosie_0801, TechWife, hepatica and 3 others like this

#118 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23173 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:25 AM

Who the heck said to crush their hope?! What the hell people? Are you purposely being obtuse?

No one wants to crush that hope, I want to make it a more realistic likelihood!!

I wouldn't crush the hope of having a winning power ball lotto ticket like someone else did that one or two times, but I don't think pointing out the odds against them is hope crushing either. Pointing out things that might be more helpful to them is not hope crushing. Pointing out a system that expects all of them to win the lotto or be deemed lazy, stupid, ungrateful, and irresponsible is an unjust system and that as a very wealthy nation we can and should make a better system is also not hope crushing.

 

It kind of seems like you are TBH.  We're offering suggestions, options, hope (from positive IRL stories of "change" happening), and reality that this is life for many people so trying to alleviate despair to some degree.

 

It seems like you're suggesting the only option is to change the Big Picture via politics.  I think many of us would agree with at least some of what you're proposing (not necessarily all because I don't want to live in "The Giver,"), but how, exactly does trying to help in the "here and now" make US the obtuse ones?  We're basing what we're suggesting in reality - what real life IS.  

 

Life isn't fair, get used to it.  My dad said this to me often when I was a wee lass.  I've told my boys the same thing.  Anyone who gets cancer, esp from unknown or genetic causes, realizes it just as much as those looking at inherited bank accounts or whatever. The birth lottery means the difference in a ton of things - as does the genetic lottery.  If one didn't draw a great number (and statistically, most don't), then here are some things to perhaps strive for better in the future and not feel so bad about it now.  Many of us have changed economic classes within our lifetime - even moreso if you go back merely a generation or two.

 

I'm not sure why you think we're the obtuse ones...


  • transientChris, edelweiss, fraidycat and 2 others like this

#119 DawnM

DawnM

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22004 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:26 AM

Why do you have no problem with rich people taking homes from poor people (which is what gentrification is) but you don't want low income people living in your area?

Your area is likely not going to stay looking like that. The houses won't always be far apart. The road won't always be narrow 2 lanes. The question is simply how to develop communities to accommodate everyone in the community, not just the wealthier. Even big cities are constantly developing. Rebuilding, adding to, rezoning and more.

 

Taking???  They aren't taking, they are buying, and improving the area.   What problem do you have with that?

 

So, the solution is to tell developers they have to build XX number of low income houses in addition to the high income houses.   Yeah, I don't see that happening.  we live in a free market society.  Or are you proposing we change that?  


  • transientChris, edelweiss, Heigh Ho and 2 others like this

#120 goldberry

goldberry

    In a Handbasket

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9687 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:26 AM


Back in the day when I was destitute, it took 3 jobs (1 full time and two part-time), full-time college, all while raising a baby to get out of poverty.

 

I know quite a few people working three jobs to survive, and surprisingly, they don't have time for college.  Could you explain how that worked, adding up all those hours?  I also know single moms who don't have any child care who find it surprisingly hard to just be able to work, much less work and attend college. Could you explain that part?

 

The idea that people that are poor just aren't working hard enough is (for MOST of the poor, not ALL) a fallacy.  


  • Scarlett, transientChris, Murphy101 and 5 others like this

#121 DawnM

DawnM

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22004 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:27 AM

It kind of seems like you are TBH.  We're offering suggestions, options, hope (from positive IRL stories of "change" happening), and reality that this is life for many people so trying to alleviate despair to some degree.

 

It seems like you're suggesting the only option is to change the Big Picture via politics.  I think many of us would agree with at least some of what you're proposing (not necessarily all because I don't want to live in "The Giver,"), but how, exactly does trying to help in the "here and now" make US the obtuse ones?  We're basing what we're suggesting in reality - what real life IS.  

 

Life isn't fair, get used to it.  My dad said this to me often when I was a wee lass.  I've told my boys the same thing.  Anyone who gets cancer, esp from unknown or genetic causes, realizes it just as much as those looking at inherited bank accounts or whatever. The birth lottery means the difference in a ton of things - as does the genetic lottery.  If one didn't draw a great number (and statistically, most don't), then here are some things to perhaps strive for better in the future and not feel so bad about it now.  Many of us have changed economic classes within our lifetime - even moreso if you go back merely a generation or two.

 

I'm not sure why you think we're the obtuse ones...

 

 

I keep picturing Harrison Bergeron.


  • creekland likes this

#122 jdahlquist

jdahlquist

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1721 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:28 AM

The idea that a free market would create a higher quality of education regardless of zip code is ridiculous and laughable.  That is why when people suggest things like that, I truly doubt their sincerity.  

 

I know many highly educated economists who have spent years studying these issues who sincerely believe this.  I do not think their studies are ridiculous or laughable.  



#123 goldberry

goldberry

    In a Handbasket

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9687 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:34 AM

Taking???  They aren't taking, they are buying, and improving the area.   What problem do you have with that?

 

So, the solution is to tell developers they have to build XX number of low income houses in addition to the high income houses.   Yeah, I don't see that happening.  we live in a free market society.  Or are you proposing we change that?  

 

Zoning changes that.  Zoning of new areas, and zoning of older areas that are torn down or refurbished.  

 

What the problem is with gentrification, they are "improving the area" for those that can afford those homes.  There are too many area where teachers and other workers cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work because of this happening.  Our town is very close to that right now.  The average housing price in our small town is inching up close to $300,000.  We have three older trailer parks in our town.  You would not believe the push to get rid of those trailer parks.  And you know what?  They are an eyesore.  I totally get that.  And there are some problems there, crime.  But do you think they want those trailer parks gone only to be replaced by "decent" low income housing?  Heck no, that property is too valuable.  That could totally be used for some really nice houses!

 

It comes down to money or morals.  The city and others are going to make more money by rezoning that area for "really nice houses".  But where is that leading us?

 

When lower income homes are torn down and higher income homes built, where do the lower income people go?   All towns need lower income workers to function, but few higher income residents want them living there.  There is a problem with that attitude.  


  • Eliana, TechWife, mamaraby and 5 others like this

#124 goldberry

goldberry

    In a Handbasket

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9687 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:35 AM

I know many highly educated economists who have spent years studying these issues who sincerely believe this.  I do not think their studies are ridiculous or laughable.  

 

Just curious then, do they have a theory why that didn't happen before we had public education?



#125 beckyjo

beckyjo

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1501 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:45 AM

I guess I'm glad I graduated before all those statistics were everywhere.  I'm pretty sure my high school had a laughable record by some standards, but I would not laugh to think of anyone graduating from there and doing well.  Heck, my uncle graduated in an inner city reform school and ended up a successful doctor.  Never say never.
 

 

Oh, good gravy! I'm not saying never (although I have lived in this town for almost my entire life, and we have never in those 40+ years had a graduate of the public schools attend an Ivy League). I am saying when the average to good school district has almost 1/3 in the lowest level of achievement and only 2% in the highest level, where do you think the focus is? It is NOT on helping those 2% achieve everything they possibly could. What about the school district next to me that has even worse stats - you better believe their focus isn't on those few kids who may "make it".

 

I applied to, was accepted, attended, and graduated from a state-wide public school for gifted students after my Freshman year in this same school my kids are now zoned for. This public school didn't even congratulate me; heck, they didn't even recognize me as the top student in my Freshman year. And then...I was considered "high-risk" in this new school because surprise! despite having been tracked for 4 years in the top-most options of classes, I was woefully behind other students in my new school. As a high risk student, I attended summer school, mandatory tutoring, mandatory study hours, and social and educational meetings throughout the next 3 years in order to stay in my new school. 

 

I am a success story (although I am low income because I am homeschooling, not working for pay); success stories are out there, and I celebrate each and every one. HOWEVER, I believe they are getting rarer than ye olden days and we need to look at how we can even the playing field - not sit around and tell people, "Well, I did it, and at least you have a house/ a car/ public transportation/ clean water/ whatever." Yes, it may be a first world problem, but you know what, I live in the first world, so to me, it's still a problem. 

 

And yes, I am happy in my life. I love my kids; I love my husband; all that jazz. That doesn't mean I don't want more for my kids. And I fully realize that they are getting a huge advantage over many people because they are bright, they have an intact household, they have very involved parents, grandparents, and uncles and aunts, etc. Still doesn't mean I don't want more for my kids.


  • Murphy101, mamaraby, Heigh Ho and 1 other like this

#126 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23173 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:45 AM

So, the solution is to tell developers they have to build XX number of low income houses in addition to the high income houses.   Yeah, I don't see that happening.  we live in a free market society.  Or are you proposing we change that?  

 

This is actually happening in some areas.  Time will tell how it turns out.  It's a work in progress at the moment (at least, those I know about).

 

Not having adequate housing for all income levels is definitely an issue in many places worldwide.  No one has found a good fix yet (that I know of).


  • DawnM likes this

#127 Murphy101

Murphy101

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15746 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:47 AM

Zoning changes that. Zoning of new areas, and zoning of older areas that are torn down or refurbished.

What the problem is with gentrification, they are "improving the area" for those that can afford those homes. There are too many area where teachers and other workers cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work because of this happening. Our town is very close to that right now. The average housing price in our small town is inching up close to $300,000. We have three older trailer parks in our town. You would not believe the push to get rid of those trailer parks. And you know what? They are an eyesore. I totally get that. And there are some problems there, crime. But do you think they want those trailer parks gone only to be replaced by "decent" low income housing? Heck no, that property is too valuable. That could totally be used for some really nice houses!

It comes down to money or morals. The city and others are going to make more money by rezoning that area for "really nice houses". But where is that leading us?

When lower income homes are torn down and higher income homes built, where do the lower income people go? All towns need lower income workers to function, but few higher income residents want them living there. There is a problem with that attitude.

This

Also. Those developers gets huge amounts of money from the govt (city, state, and sometimes federal) to do that developing that shunts out low income peopke who were there. There's also the problem of deeming areas where people are living as undesirable and or condemning it. In my city alone, there was a huge dispute within the last few years that 3 locations were deemed "undesirable" and the city condemned it, then turned around and sold it for a steal to a developer or big business and included tax incentives to them too. All of that is a misuse of taxes imo. Those taxes could have gone to helping that property afford upgrades and beautification. But it didn't bc it was low income. As far as I'm concerned, that's government colluding to take from the poor and give to the wealthy.

Edited by Murphy101, 16 July 2017 - 11:47 AM.

  • Eliana, TechWife, frogger and 2 others like this

#128 Artichoke

Artichoke

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1379 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:48 AM

I know quite a few people working three jobs to survive, and surprisingly, they don't have time for college.  Could you explain how that worked, adding up all those hours?  I also know single moms who don't have any child care who find it surprisingly hard to just be able to work, much less work and attend college. Could you explain that part?

 

The idea that people that are poor just aren't working hard enough is (for MOST of the poor, not ALL) a fallacy.  

 

 

I'm not Minnie but am someone who worked three jobs sometimes and had a child while attending college full time.  It was brutal!   My school days were MWF so on those days I would work a fast food job from 4:30am to 10:30am with classes at noon and on.  T/TH I worked for a construction company doing whatever grunt work needed for the apartments  they were building.  On F evenings /Sat mornings/Sun mornings, I worked at a local them park.  DH and I were married so he worked the opposite closing shift at a fast food restaurant.   We usually had one car during these times but sometimes had two.  There would have been no way for us to do this without transportation.  When I took summer classes, I only worked the theme park and fast food job.   Homework was done whenever I could.  We did this for right about two years and it almost killed our marriage.  In hindsight, we'd not do it again.  It took too much of a toll on us.   


  • frogger, goldberry and mamaraby like this

#129 Frances

Frances

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1983 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:50 AM

The idea that a free market would create a higher quality of education regardless of zip code is ridiculous and laughable. That is why when people suggest things like that, I truly doubt their sincerity.

I fully recognize that people have different ideas about how things should happen, and I am open to hearing different ideas. It's not different ideas that bother me if those ideas can be shown to have some likelihood of success toward the stated goal. Because otherwise, yes, I doubt the sincerity behind it.

I don't personally believe it, of course, but I was trying to represent the other side. I think for-profit charter schools is one thing they think will help. Again, not my belief, but certainly not everyone lower income is voting in the same direction.

And I think getting to high quality education for all is not easily solved, even though I firmly believe it is imperative to work towards. In my state, most funding for education comes from the general fund, not property taxes, and we still have great inequality and one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. Heck, even in my city, there is terrible inequality in education.
  • goldberry and mamaraby like this

#130 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3170 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:51 AM

Life isn't fair, get used to it. My dad said this to me often when I was a wee lass. I've told my boys the same thing. Anyone who gets cancer, esp from unknown or genetic causes, realizes it just as much as those looking at inherited bank accounts or whatever. The birth lottery means the difference in a ton of things - as does the genetic lottery. If one didn't draw a great number (and statistically, most don't), then here are some things to perhaps strive for better in the future and not feel so bad about it now. Many of us have changed economic classes within our lifetime - even moreso if you go back merely a generation or two.

I'm not sure why you think we're the obtuse ones...

i agree with pretty much everything you have posted, but most especially this. Life isn't fair. We can try to make it more fair, but we can never eliminate unfairness. so there will be choices that people can make to try to help themselves.

Edited by happysmileylady, 16 July 2017 - 11:52 AM.

  • transientChris, Frances, creekland and 1 other like this

#131 DawnM

DawnM

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22004 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:52 AM

This is actually happening in some areas.  Time will tell how it turns out.  It's a work in progress at the moment (at least, those I know about).

 

Not having adequate housing for all income levels is definitely an issue in many places worldwide.  No one has found a good fix yet (that I know of).

 

 

It is interesting.  Where I live now, we have low, median, and high income housing.  They aren't all in the same place necessarily, but it is available.   I just can't really understand the mandate to build super low income housing in a wealthy area.     There are other options.


  • edelweiss and Catwoman like this

#132 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23173 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:56 AM

Oh, good gravy! I'm not saying never (although I have lived in this town for almost my entire life, and we have never in those 40+ years had a graduate of the public schools attend an Ivy League). I am saying when the average to good school district has almost 1/3 in the lowest level of achievement and only 2% in the highest level, where do you think the focus is? It is NOT on helping those 2% achieve everything they possibly could. What about the school district next to me that has even worse stats - you better believe their focus isn't on those few kids who may "make it".

 

I applied to, was accepted, attended, and graduated from a state-wide public school for gifted students after my Freshman year in this same school my kids are now zoned for. This public school didn't even congratulate me; heck, they didn't even recognize me as the top student in my Freshman year. And then...I was considered "high-risk" in this new school because surprise! despite having been tracked for 4 years in the top-most options of classes, I was woefully behind other students in my new school. As a high risk student, I attended summer school, mandatory tutoring, mandatory study hours, and social and educational meetings throughout the next 3 years in order to stay in my new school. 

 

I am a success story (although I am low income because I am homeschooling, not working for pay); success stories are out there, and I celebrate each and every one. HOWEVER, I believe they are getting rarer than ye olden days and we need to look at how we can even the playing field - not sit around and tell people, "Well, I did it, and at least you have a house/ a car/ public transportation/ clean water/ whatever." Yes, it may be a first world problem, but you know what, I live in the first world, so to me, it's still a problem. 

 

And yes, I am happy in my life. I love my kids; I love my husband; all that jazz. That doesn't mean I don't want more for my kids. And I fully realize that they are getting a huge advantage over many people because they are bright, they have an intact household, they have very involved parents, grandparents, and uncles and aunts, etc. Still doesn't mean I don't want more for my kids.

 

What more do you want?  Is there ever an end to wanting more?

 

I'm happy that mine are finding jobs that they like and pay the bills.  They're starting on quite the tight budget - not terribly unlike hubby and I did in our early years.

 

We're in a school district (the one I work in) and I pulled them out to homeschool after 8th, 6th, and 4th grades respectively because I wanted their education to be more like mine than the average one we live in.  Youngest opted to return to ps for his high school years - and he's still succeeding based upon my definition of success.  The majority of kids from my school district do just fine - unless - I suppose - one wants their kids in the Top 1% being those everyone (except me apparently) is envious of.

 

Those who don't succeed (again, the definition I used in my second line) tend to have family, relationship, people skills, or neurological issues - or drug abuse (which could fall under neurological issues - as can people skills).

 

My grandparents are no longer alive, but they'd scoff at anyone saying "the good old days" were better.


  • transientChris, DawnM, frogger and 1 other like this

#133 DawnM

DawnM

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22004 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:57 AM

Zoning changes that.  Zoning of new areas, and zoning of older areas that are torn down or refurbished.  

 

What the problem is with gentrification, they are "improving the area" for those that can afford those homes.  There are too many area where teachers and other workers cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work because of this happening.  Our town is very close to that right now.  The average housing price in our small town is inching up close to $300,000.  We have three older trailer parks in our town.  You would not believe the push to get rid of those trailer parks.  And you know what?  They are an eyesore.  I totally get that.  And there are some problems there, crime.  But do you think they want those trailer parks gone only to be replaced by "decent" low income housing?  Heck no, that property is too valuable.  That could totally be used for some really nice houses!

 

It comes down to money or morals.  The city and others are going to make more money by rezoning that area for "really nice houses".  But where is that leading us?

 

When lower income homes are torn down and higher income homes built, where do the lower income people go?   All towns need lower income workers to function, but few higher income residents want them living there.  There is a problem with that attitude.  

 

Maybe it is in how we are defining low income.   I am picturing Section 8 housing, very run down, with people on welfare.  I picture it this way because that is where I work.  But maybe you just mean affordable homes for those who might be able to buy if given the opportunity.

 

And you can't touch a house in LA for $300K, even in the inner-city.  



#134 Artichoke

Artichoke

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1379 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:57 AM

Taking???  They aren't taking, they are buying, and improving the area.   What problem do you have with that?

 

So, the solution is to tell developers they have to build XX number of low income houses in addition to the high income houses.   Yeah, I don't see that happening.  we live in a free market society.  Or are you proposing we change that?  

 

For an informative look at the idea of taking homes from the poor, some reading about far-reaching eminent domain decisions and economic development may surprise you.  


  • Murphy101, Eliana, TechWife and 6 others like this

#135 MommyLiberty5013

MommyLiberty5013

    Don't Let the Lipstick Fool You

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:57 AM

DH and I have a "brother" from Big Brothers/Big Sisters. We met him when he was 8. He is 15 now. We stay in touch; however, due to circumstances in our own lives, we had to move away to another state 5 years ago.

 

When he was 8, he was assigned a school project to make a shoe box "picture" of nature with a few "living things" and a few "non living" things. It was for science. He hated school. He hated it and refused to try at anything. We had him over with the idea that along with dinner and board games we would help him with this project.

 

He wanted to do the ocean option. We took him to the pet store where we bought ocean paper and sand. We bought a piece of coral and a few plants and some plastic sea animals. At completion, he had what was the best project in his class. He got his first "A." From them on, our "brother" cared to try at school and he saw that it was possible for him to succeed. Then his mom got strangled by her nasty boyfriend (she lived) and overdosed and our "brother" found her in a pile of her own vomit. He was not even in HS then. He got into HS and was on the honor role for one year, and playing varsity basketball. We had moved at this point and he was dragged back down into that life of not caring. Now, he is very troubled. Probably, he is affected by what he saw as a child. But he is also affected by his surroundings.

 

DH and I will continue to care about him and the others we take care of. But, despite our hearts, we know that sometimes - a lot of times - all the help you give to people in ways of time and money just ends up failing. This is not to say we should stop trying, but we have to be realistic that we are up against forces of family patterns and thoughts that have spanned generations. Eventually, no matter how hard our "brother" tried, he just got pulled back down into the pit.

 

All of this story I share is WITH loving and personal attention given to a person. But when people stand at a distance and proclaim that a new "program" will change things or more money will change things, without a boots on the ground approach, I respectfully disagree. Changing things actually means getting into the trenches and not just by policy or legislation and taking people or families under ones' wing and actually teaching them and giving them the tools to better themselves. "We will fix poverty by having this program ______" or "Will end poverty when we tax the wealthy at 75% (made up stat)." I do not agree. We will fix poverty when people who have a lot or even a slightly bit more then the impoverished give some of their excess without being forced to do so.

 

If you think I condone taking from the rich to give to the poor, you would be wrong. I hate that idea. I do not think legislation should force people into giving their extras. I would rather compel people to do so by showing them how wonderful it is. As a Christian, I know Jesus spoke a lot about money. However, many stories we have reveal that some early Christians were quite wealthy. Were they commanded into giving it up? Made to feel guilty for their material success? Nope and nope. But as part of their greater communities of believers they wanted to out of glad hearts. I hope more people can have glad hearts and become cheerful givers - whether they are Christians or not. I do believe it is the best and most successful way of helping those in need get a leg up - yes, this is just my worldview lens speaking.


  • reefgazer likes this

#136 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3170 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:01 PM

I know quite a few people working three jobs to survive, and surprisingly, they don't have time for college. Could you explain how that worked, adding up all those hours? I also know single moms who don't have any child care who find it surprisingly hard to just be able to work, much less work and attend college. Could you explain that part?

The idea that people that are poor just aren't working hard enough is (for MOST of the poor, not ALL) a fallacy.

my DH didn't work 3 jobs while in school. But he did work full time PLUS OT and I worked part time, while he went to school full time and I was popping our younger kids out. It's very tough. I worked part time while in school full time as a single mom. It's very difficult.


Of course ONLY working hard isn't the only factor. I don't think anyone here believes that poor people "just" need to work harder. But, it's not like NOT working hard is as likely to produce as much financial success as working hard.
  • transientChris, Heigh Ho and Artichoke like this

#137 DawnM

DawnM

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22004 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:03 PM

For an informative look at the idea of taking homes from the poor, some reading about far-reaching eminent domain decisions and economic development may surprise you.  

 

I know about eminent domain, it was a huge issue where I used to live and is becoming a bigger issue here.

 

But I am talking specifically about areas where I used to live where people of some means have purchased houses and made them nicer.  As the area gets more and more of these folks in, the area becomes even nicer.


  • Artichoke likes this

#138 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23173 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:11 PM

DH and I have a "brother" from Big Brothers/Big Sisters. We met him when he was 8. He is 15 now. We stay in touch; however, due to circumstances in our own lives, we had to move away to another state 5 years ago.

 

When he was 8, he was assigned a school project to make a shoe box "picture" of nature with a few "living things" and a few "non living" things. It was for science. He hated school. He hated it and refused to try at anything. We had him over with the idea that along with dinner and board games we would help him with this project.

 

He wanted to do the ocean option. We took him to the pet store where we bought ocean paper and sand. We bought a piece of coral and a few plants and some plastic sea animals. At completion, he had what was the best project in his class. He got his first "A." From them on, our "brother" cared to try at school and he saw that it was possible for him to succeed. Then his mom got strangled by her nasty boyfriend (she lived) and overdosed and our "brother" found her in a pile of her own vomit. He was not even in HS then. He got into HS and was on the honor role for one year, and playing varsity basketball. We had moved at this point and he was dragged back down into that life of not caring. Now, he is very troubled. Probably, he is affected by what he saw as a child. But he is also affected by his surroundings.

 

DH and I will continue to care about him and the others we take care of. But, despite our hearts, we know that sometimes - a lot of times - all the help you give to people in ways of time and money just ends up failing. This is not to say we should stop trying, but we have to be realistic that we are up against forces of family patterns and thoughts that have spanned generations. Eventually, no matter how hard our "brother" tried, he just got pulled back down into the pit.

 

I (and others) can often reach kids (teens at this point) at school, but then they go home.   :glare:

 

Some of the best success I've had with (all) kids is telling them they aren't stupid because they don't know the answers to questions already like many more advantaged kids do from their experiences.  None of us know Nitrogen is the most dominant gas in our atmosphere from birth.  We all learn it at some point.  It doesn't matter if that point is preschool (like my kids having a science/math mom) or 7th grade when they learn it in school (or 9th grade if they missed it in 7th).  It all depends upon when one is exposed to the material.  There's no intelligence involved in when one gets exposed.  That's birth lottery.

 

However, after being taught the material - using it, etc - and then not committing it to memory because they preferred to play a video game... that's showing lack of intelligence.

 

Interestingly enough, I just saw the author of The Hillbilly Elegy mention something eerily the same - confusing the two words - thinking the former because he didn't understand how to multiply at a young age.

 

The difference is worth knowing - and sharing with kids.


  • reefgazer likes this

#139 jdahlquist

jdahlquist

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1721 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:12 PM

Just curious then, do they have a theory why that didn't happen before we had public education?

What time periods are you comparing?  "Before we had publication education" is a broad term.  Are you talking about 1700s in Austria?  1800s is Massachusetts?  Availability of public schools for those in urban areas?  Availability of public schools for those in rural areas?  Mandatory schooling?  



#140 jdahlquist

jdahlquist

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1721 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:24 PM

This

Also. Those developers gets huge amounts of money from the govt (city, state, and sometimes federal) to do that developing that shunts out low income peopke who were there. There's also the problem of deeming areas where people are living as undesirable and or condemning it. In my city alone, there was a huge dispute within the last few years that 3 locations were deemed "undesirable" and the city condemned it, then turned around and sold it for a steal to a developer or big business and included tax incentives to them too. All of that is a misuse of taxes imo. Those taxes could have gone to helping that property afford upgrades and beautification. But it didn't bc it was low income. As far as I'm concerned, that's government colluding to take from the poor and give to the wealthy.

I don't know the specifics of your area, but I am having a difficult time understanding this.  It sounds as if there was city land that was sold to developers.  These developers received tax incentives.  Usually tax incentives like this are such that the property owner gets a reduction in property taxes for a particular period of time.  

 

I don't see where there was tax money that could have gone to pay for property upgrades and beautification.  If it was government property to be sold there were no tax revenues coming in from the land.  If the purchasers received tax breaks, the government is receiving less money after the property is sold than it would have otherwise in property taxes.  But, there is no tax money being spent on the tax break that could have been spent on something else.  


  • reefgazer likes this

#141 JIN MOUSA

JIN MOUSA

    Hive Mind Level 3 Worker: Honeymaking Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 174 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:31 PM

I feel extraordinarily blessed to be so privileged, most of the time.

 

BUT it is a reality that there is a huge disparity of wealth and opportunity in our country and world. 

 

It is delusional to think that a kid born to millionaires and one born homeless have the same opportunities and advantages. I think those types of thoughts only help to assuage pride and guilt. Pride to think that your kid or you are where you are only due to your own merit and guilt that you have it easier than others. 

 

I don't think it is good to dwell on these thoughts and the what ifs. But if we keep ignoring these facts the wealth disparity will continue to grow. It is fine and well to tell people to be happy with the life they have when you are living it up. 

 

My grandma worked in a cotton field, backbreaking work yet she was still lower class. My mom worked multiple jobs, as did my dad and they vastly improved their situation, they moved up to middle class. Rich people need to stop thinking that the only rich people work hard.

 

Already liked, but also wanted to quote because of the bolded. This is so true. There's a really beautiful TED talk by Mia Birsdong about this - https://www.ted.com/...erty_isn_t_true


  • mamaraby and J. Alfred Prufrock like this

#142 SereneHome

SereneHome

    Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1155 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:34 PM

I know quite a few people working three jobs to survive, and surprisingly, they don't have time for college.  Could you explain how that worked, adding up all those hours?  I also know single moms who don't have any child care who find it surprisingly hard to just be able to work, much less work and attend college. Could you explain that part?

 

The idea that people that are poor just aren't working hard enough is (for MOST of the poor, not ALL) a fallacy.  

 

I am not the person you asked, but I'll tell you how I did it. 

 

At first I worked at a summer camp during the day and retail job at night and bakery on Sunday - 4am-4pm

 

During school year, I had a retail job and teller job during the week and I worked sundays at a bakery.  Going to school full time means that you are only in school for 12 hrs (minus the commute).

 

I didn't have any children and I lived with my parents in a small apartment. 

 

My mom also had two jobs and my dad had a full time job, so between the three of us we had 6 jobs.

 

And most of the families I knew did similar things.  I didn't know a single person who was going to college and didn't have either a few part time jobs or almost a full time job.  But as I said - family support is huge, bc everyone pulled resources together and tried to better the whole family. 


  • transientChris, goldberry and reefgazer like this

#143 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11551 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:35 PM

Well, I am speaking of experience as well. My husband went through the military for college - qualified to be a fighter pilot. He was first generation college, broken home, no Money. Through his hard work, and yes, risk, he now makes a very nice salary as an airline pilot. I understand physical disqualifications, and I'm sorry, really sorry that it isn't an option for those who have them. I would think that getting ahead and dramatically changing your income and lifestyle would demand a risk and a significant commitment and if there's an opportunity - even if it is dangerous- they'd take it.



I couldn't get a waiver in order to go ROTC or proceed with an Academy app, so I can't get behind miltary as the only solution for bright poor kids. I went to state u and picked a major where I could get departmental scholarships as an upper classman and that helped substantially.

I would like to point out that High School to Flight School is worth checking out if your dc is highly capable and not myopic or otherwise disqualified, but doesn't have access to AP level or higher that would make them competitive at schools that would work financially. I know a dyslexic fella did this,much better choice than CC. Leadership and physical fitness matter too of course.

#144 Tibbie Dunbar

Tibbie Dunbar

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6154 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:42 PM

The hell, indeed. You seem to have misread my post quite a bit. I said IF and JUST. As in, if this, only that. You read as "is this, is that."

You make a choice to serve your country. The key word there is serve. You don't make a decision to get something from your country. If you base your entire reasoning on what you are going to get, then you miss the serving part. Again, please read every word of that, including the if. The choice has to be there to serve, defend, protect. These have to be things factored in to make a balanced decision.

You are more than welcome to being shocked.


No, no, no. My reading skills are fine. I don't care about your "if."

When a person serves their country, then we are grateful, respectful...their reasons for serving their country are 100% their own business. By joining up, they made the CHOICE to serve, defend, protect. Obviously! They are noble enough without having to justify all their thought processes to us, in addition to actually serving. They don't have to tell us why they made that CHOICE.
  • transientChris, QueenCat, edelweiss and 5 others like this

#145 MommyLiberty5013

MommyLiberty5013

    Don't Let the Lipstick Fool You

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:43 PM

In a PP I mentioned DH and my "little brother." One thing I just thought of was that I do think poorer people do have an extra hurdle to overcome to be successful than the wealthier or middle class have. I did/do observe this first hand.

 

It is the mentality of poor people being threaten when one of their own attempts to reach beyond what they all have. It often comes out as, "Oh, you're better than us, huh?" Or, "Gettin' too big for your britches!" Or, "That's not for us." There is a resentment toward people who try or who refuse to take the hand outs and want to do it on their own. There is a lot of negative language toward those within the poorer communities trying to get education or to better their circumstances. Many do give up just because their own communities pull them back down.

 

You do not find this as much in middle class or upper class communities. There, there is more encouragement toward upward mobility in terms of material wealth and education. Fewer people would find upward mobility threatening.

 

Why do you all think this is?


  • transientChris, Pink and Green Mom, creekland and 3 others like this

#146 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3170 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:54 PM

In a PP I mentioned DH and my "little brother." One thing I just thought of was that I do think poorer people do have an extra hurdle to overcome to be successful than the wealthier or middle class have. I did/do observe this first hand.

It is the mentality of poor people being threaten when one of their own attempts to reach beyond what they all have. It often comes out as, "Oh, you're better than us, huh?" Or, "Gettin' too big for your britches!" Or, "That's not for us." There is a resentment toward people who try or who refuse to take the hand outs and want to do it on their own. There is a lot of negative language toward those within the poorer communities trying to get education or to better their circumstances. Many do give up just because their own communities pull them back down.

You do not find this as much in middle class or upper class communities. There, there is more encouragement toward upward mobility in terms of material wealth and education. Fewer people would find upward mobility threatening.

Why do you all think this is?

this is exactly something that DH encountered with his family. Not to that sort of active level, but there was for sure this undercurrent from his dad that it wasn't worth trying, and that DH wasn't doing the smart thing by working so hard for something that was not going to work.

I am not sure exactly where it came from in FILs case.
  • transientChris and reefgazer like this

#147 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11551 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:59 PM

And what would that look like in practical terms? How would we ensure that everyone has the same advantages/disadvantages?


We can start by offering public school students classes at their instructional level. No more spending the majority of one's time in review. Or being told to grad early because the school board refuses to offer AP or IB. Or disparate impact means an academically qualified white, Jewish, or Asian male can't get a seat in a class he needs,and is given study hall instead. Equal opportunity.
  • Murphy101, frogger and reefgazer like this

#148 reefgazer

reefgazer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5835 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:00 PM

Yes!  From someone who has been in both places, yes.

I prefer to keep my head in the sand and think of all the things that DS will have (hopefully)...

The ability to "make do"

The ability to see the potential of things whereas others would just see trash

The ability to think so very outside the box in order to make things work

The ability to make money from sweat, not trees

The ability to not panic at the thought of no money for the last 20 days out of the month

The ability to be happy eating the same damn thing for months on end so the budget doesn't need tweaking

The ability to make happy memories regardless of what possessions were involved in the making because heck, even the secondhand camping equipment might need to go at some point

Knowing what sacrifice is because the kids of famine-stricken Kenya are so much worse off than we are so we will help them too instead of splurging for the extra fancy bread or two kinds of fruit

 

Some of these things can be learned in any income bracket, in any family of origin.  But some of those things are only really learned at the bottom so if you really think about it, DS has a leg up in some respects :)  Don't be depressed :)

 


  • WendyAndMilo likes this

#149 beckyjo

beckyjo

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1501 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:01 PM

What more do you want?  Is there ever an end to wanting more?

 

I'm happy that mine are finding jobs that they like and pay the bills.  They're starting on quite the tight budget - not terribly unlike hubby and I did in our early years.

 

We're in a school district (the one I work in) and I pulled them out to homeschool after 8th, 6th, and 4th grades respectively because I wanted their education to be more like mine than the average one we live in.  Youngest opted to return to ps for his high school years - and he's still succeeding based upon my definition of success.  The majority of kids from my school district do just fine - unless - I suppose - one wants their kids in the Top 1% being those everyone (except me apparently) is envious of.

 

Those who don't succeed (again, the definition I used in my second line) tend to have family, relationship, people skills, or neurological issues - or drug abuse (which could fall under neurological issues - as can people skills).

 

My grandparents are no longer alive, but they'd scoff at anyone saying "the good old days" were better.

 

I own a mobile home in a tornado prone area. I would like them to have more and better options than that. 

 

I would like them to be able to take a class at the local CC without trying to figure out how to feed 5 people on $200 for a month - this one is pulled directly from my life next month - my DH is returning to school for more training. He gets tuition reimbursement - yay! - it doesn't pay until January - boo! Only place to pull it from is food or put it on a credit card (which was used 4 months ago to pay for the water heater and car going out at the same time). 

 

I'd like them to be able to have a public school option for my grandbabies that will nurture and educate them to the fullest in case my kids don't want to or can't homeschool them.

 

I don't think that is asking for them to be in the 1% or even to have a fraction of the advantages those people have.

 

My kids are working hard, and they will most likely live healthy, productive, happy lives because of their hard work and the advantages I've outlined before. I do find it discouraging to know though that just because they didn't start in the middle class, they are not likely to get as far as those who don't try as hard as they do but started out with richer parents. When some get a head start and then end even farther ahead, it means the next generation in the relay is starting at an even bigger disadvantage. I don't find it to be a great metaphor because anything you do to improve your station is an advantage, but somedays it kind of feels like it is - like when I have to more than halve the grocery budget because it's the only line item that is flexible to pay for one measly cc class...

 

I have already told them they are free to leave the area; in fact, I've told them straight out it's better for them to leave the area. I wasn't free to leave for a variety of reasons and now I am helping to care for aging in-laws, so we won't be moving anytime soon. This move alone will give them a leg up as our area never recovered from the death of American manufacturing.

 

Once again, I am happy and content with my life.  I am a first generation college graduate; my family tree is on an uphill climb (my grandmother graduated high school the year her youngest child did; my grandfather never graduated high school at all). I am not comparing myself to Bob Billionaire or Maddy Millionaire or even Henry Hundred-Thousand-a-Year. But I also see the discrepencies (I cannot figure out the spelling of that word, sorry!) in our society and I feel there has to be a better way for those kids in the bottom 3, especially the bottom 2, quintiles to move up the ladder. Do I know what that better way is? Not really, but there has to be a way.


  • Murphy101 likes this

#150 reefgazer

reefgazer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5835 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:08 PM

That's already happened multiple times in our history; especially during the civil rights era when schools were forced to re-zone for integration. 

In my area, they have incentives to build high-income housing in low-income neighborhoods, with the intention of improving the general condition and feel of the area.  [Arguable] problem with that is, it uses taxpayer money to subsidize the rich.  The families living there don't expect the inner city schools to meet their kids' educational needs; at a minimum they will pay for supplemental education, but mostly they will choose private schools.  So the impact is limited.  Might still be a good idea.

 

I frequently drive through a fairly rich neighborhood - homes of doctors etc.  Large houses.  Families locate there for the excellent school system among other reasons.  If you stuck some multi-family housing in the middle of the neighhborhood, here's what I think would happen: people would sell their homes to multi-family developers and find another place to live.  If these folks had wanted to live in a diverse area, they would have bought in a diverse area.  You can't force people of means to live with people they didn't choose as neighbors.  If you made all cities include minimum multifamily units, these folks would move to villages or rural areas.  At a minimum they would choose private schools if they felt the public school standards were changing to accommodate a lower average ability.

 

I think you'd have better luck starting with school quality, which will attract people with big dreams for their kids.