I am struggling with that question myself now. We don't have too much room as it is (apartment), but once the kids are done with high school and are off to college I really would like to move. Where we live right now is great for kids/families but once they have moved out I would much rather move back to a larger city. I really miss where I used to live prior to kids. BUT rents are much higher there and I would probably have to just get a small studio which is fine for me but doesn't lend itself much to visitor. It definitely wouldn't work for grandkids etc. but realistically it would be difficult even for my kids to come for more than a couple of days (at least not both at the same time). Not sure yet what to do about this...

I read most but not all of the comments (so sorry if I missed something important) but here is where I fall on the disclosure thing: Generally, I am very private and would not mention anything really personal unless necessary but I kind of can see it with the gender neutral/fluid thing. I mean if it is really important for you to be addressed in a certain way you have to say something because how else would people know? Kind of like saying, my name is Penelope but please call me Nel because I hate my actual name. Also, if the appearance of the gender fluid person is such that it is difficult to tell whether they are male/female it can be difficult for others to know how to act (most people hate to be taken for male if they are female or the other way around). Telling them straight up might be easiest.

I know this is supposed to be a JAWM but maybe this will make you feel better anyway: We do live in a much smaller space (apartment) and it is a pain! The problem is we still have way too much stuff. Our basement is packed and there are boxes all over our hallway with stuff that I don't want to throw out but don't really use and can't fit in the basement. I have an office (I work from home), but probably will have to give it up soon so my kids can have separate rooms. Right now they share and not only is it crowded but they constantly fight. I can't buy any cool kitchen appliances because our kitchen is tiny and stuffed. I even have to leave some pots on the stove because there is no space anywhere else. There is only one bathroom so there is always a fight if someone stays in too long. If I want to take a nap I need to kick kids out of their room because I don't have a bedroom but sleep on the pull-out in the living room. Don't get me wrong, it isn't all that bad (slightly annoying but basically okay). Also I totally get wanting to have less stuff/be happy with less. All I am saying is, that having less space has its own challenges AND pretty often everything is still full of stuff.

While it seems a bit rude, it does make expectations clear AND saves you wasting time on an interview if the expectations don't fit with what you are planning to pay.

I don't really agree with this. I mean the 12 year old is in that class and of course she would like to have some friends. Probably all the other students are older so she doesn't have much choice (aside of the fact that she may well be more mature than an average 12 year old). I would feel different if it was a question of dating or having a boyfried etc. as I think the age difference would make more difference there. But for a "regular" friendship? Also, I remember when I was in my late teens/early twenties. I went on several vacations on which I had a lot of contact with younger kids (say in the 9 to 12 year old range) and we got along great. Maybe it isn't the classic friendship but it is a friendship and there really is nothing weird about it. (Not to me at least).

I too doubt it. Also, some people really enjoy saving money. At that age maybe "saving" is more fulfilling to him than spending the money would be. Maybe you could get him some gift cards for restaurants?

It may well happen and maybe you are right that it would happen more if there was no/little resistance but I don't quite see it. Not trying to argue so much but trying to understand your reasoning (i.e. you may be able to convince me). Let's say you have a poor neighborhood with lots of crime, poverty, little education etc. (I am assuming that is one of the most common scenarios for bad public schools). The only reasons I can think of for opening a school there are a) to make money (rather unlikely) b) as a charity project e.g. of someone millionaire (more likely but probably not often enough to make a difference overall) or c) something community based. With the exception of it being a millionaire's pet project funding would be a problem. Let's assume there is some sort of voucher system that would fund this new private school with an average amount needed to run a school. You would still have several problems: - If you select the student body (e.g. take only the brightest, most motivated students) you could achieve a better outcome. However, other schools in the area would likely get worse. - If you do not select the student body you would need to provide much more than can be afforded with an "average" school fee in order to achieve similar results as a school in a better area. You'd likely need smaller classes, better teachers, other services than in an average school. I do think you could significantly improve the outcome, but it would be expensive. This is something that at least theoretically could be achieved by public schools. The government could decide to fund schools in problematic areas better. But I just can't see any incentive for a private school to do the same. The exception again being altruistic reasons/private benefactors which seems unlikely to be a solution for most places. But maybe I am missing something?

I think you misunderstood where I am coming from. I am all for various forms of private schools. All I am saying is that a) I don't think comparing clothes to schools is a good idea and b) I think it is unlikely that privatizing all schools would be of benefit. I do think that having both options (private and public) is an advantage. Private schools won't thrive unless they offer something better (or at least something that appears better to some) than the public schools. So public schools serve as a base line. And if you look at bad public schools there probably is a reason why they are bad. Be it because the area is too poor or because the student body is less able/willing/interested or whatever. Not sure how private schools would change this? What incentive would they have? And how would it be different to now? I mean someone could start a great private school in an area with a horrible school right now, couldn't they? So why does that normally not happen?

As far as the comparison between schools and clothing: Of course all children wear clothes (there are lots of reasons including health in colder climates, religious/personal beliefs, social mores, and the fact that you'd get in trouble if you didn't clothe your kids). But I think we can all agree that not all kids wear the same quality of clothes - some are expensive designer clothes, some good quality, some bad, some brands, some not, some fit, some don't, some are torn/dirty etc. You'd see the same difference with education. The difference is that education is a public good (as it leads to informed citizens, productive workers, innovations and inventions etc.). Clothing isn't really the same (a society can function just fine if people wear cheap clothes). Also, clothing can easily be changed. Someone wearing cheap, second hand clothes through their childhood/adolescence can "move up" to designer clothes in the blink of an eye just with some money and a short shopping trip. On the other hand, someone with an inferior education will have a lot of work to do to catch up later on even if there was plenty of money/opportunities.

Not sure I agree with the comparison. The difficulties for market entry for internet service providers are just much higher than for schools. If you live in an area where there is only one internet service, then that is kind of a monopoly because you have no other option. However, if homeschooling is legal you have at least one other option with schools. I do agree though that there probably are areas in which there are no alternative schools and so the public school has basically a monopoly (if we disregard homeschooling which may not be possible for many). However, there could be more schools and the reason there isn't is because it isn't worth having more (maybe because of low income or too few students). That wouldn't change if schools were privatized. There probably would still only be one school (at least after a short while) and as there is no alternative it might well be worse than the current option. Most areas in the US where I have lived had various options (private schools, parochial etc.). However, the situation may be different in many rural areas.

I don't really agree with you post in general, but this is where you really lose me. Schools in the US are not a monopoly. A monopoly is the "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service". But that doesn't hold at all. People are allowed to homeschool, there are private schools, charter schools, online schools, parochial schools etc. This is not a monopoly! ​Where I live in Europe education is much closer to a monopoly - no homeschooling, few private/parochial/charter schools, no online schools (at least not once that replace elementary/high school). There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but I don't think the overall educational outcome is worse than in the US.

Maybe I am overly pessimistic, but yes, that is pretty much what I am thinking. My kids would be okay - they have no special needs and I feel more than competent to teach them if I had to. Kids with rich/well-to-do parents would be okay. Many middle class kids would be okay. Kids from poorer families would probably be okay if they are very intelligent/diligent and/or their families valued education. But many kids would be worse off than now. And I don't think the state has a monopoly now as there are private schools. And I think that is great. But public schools are the base line. A private school will likely not be successful if it doesn't at least offer something more/better than public alternatives. We live in a fairly nice area with decent schools. Still, I wasn't happy about various aspects of public education so sent my first child to a private Montessori school. It was fine, there were some things there I really liked. But it fell far short of my expectations and when it came time to sign up my second child for school I decided that the advantages were not enough to justify the cost so he went to the local public school. IF public schools are truly bad in an area, private alternatives will appear. I think that if you have areas with very bad public schools and little private alternatives that means that either there are not enough students around to make it work or the families are either too poor or not that interested in education. Having only private schools wouldn't change that.

How scary. Hope they will evacuate!

No advice here either. I have a dramatic kid - when he was little he asked me to urgently call the doctor EVERY SINGLE night (presumably he started to feel a bit off when he got sleepy). He still comes with the weirdest problems (e.g. swallowing "feels different") and is convinced it is an emergency. Unfortunately, sometimes there really is a problem and I tend to ignore it, especially if he doesn't make a huge fuss over it. A couple years ago we missed an infected toe until it was really bad. I wish I had a solution!

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush and didn't word this well. What I meant is that when I quoted creekland's post which had part of your post in it your quote didn't show up on my post (I guess you can't quote a qote in a post) and creekland's original post was on a different page so I couldn't look at it while I was writing. Huh, this sounds quite convoluted and I am not sure if it is clear what I mean... In any case, I didn't mean that your post had disappeared at all.

Definitely. There is nothing wrong with having these activities in school. There are even advantages (e.g. school spirit). But it isn't absolutely necessary to have them at school (I think my post was just to mention thatthere are different ways to do this, not to make a value judgement). And I guess if money is tight and a choice has to be made between quality education and a variety of extracurriculars, I tend to think education should go first. For what it is worth, here the non-school clubs/organizations generally also share facilities (like gyms) with schools.

I strongly agree with most of this BUT I am not sure I agree with your basic premise. Are you saying that the poster you quoted (and which now doesn't show up which makes it difficult for me to remember exactly what it said) is incorrect? I actually do think it can be easier to control an uneducated population. Unfortunately, such a population can be easier manipulated by the right authority figure(s) and exactly that is the problem, isn't it?

From a German perspective, I do think there is probably just as much offered outside school here as in a regular high school in the US (sports, music, etc.) and at least my kids' school does offer a fair number of extracurriculars (various bands, theater, choir, acrobatics, etc.). The main difference I do see is that having so many extra activities offered at school let's students identify more with their school. In general, school "spirit" is pretty low here as it isn't the center of everything. Depending on how you value this, the US may offer an advantage.

I haven't read all (or most) of the long thread as I just found it and didn't yet have time but here is what I think: It would be a disaster. I am all for (some) private schools. They can concentrate on specific aspects and/or offer better education (due to choice of students/better resources). But there needs to be a free/public option. This also serves as a yard stick to measure against and ensures that private schools have to offer something extra. Who would pay if they don't get more out of it than they have for free? This sets a minimum standard for private schools. What would happen if all schools were privatized? There would still be outstanding private schools but they would charge a high premium. Obviously, they would want to make as much money as possible so fees would be raised as far as possible without losing your student base. Some hard-working/talented etc. students would benefit from these schools (as they do now). There would probably be competition in the mid-price segment. However, this would mostly be beneficial in affluent or at least comfortable areas with a large population (i.e. where people could afford to pay a bit more and could move kids to a different school in the area). It wouldn't help if people can not pay extra (so for example rely on vouchers alone) or where distances are too great. Quality of these schools would probably be about the same as now. In poorer areas or areas with little interest/knowledge of education, a bunch of super-cheap schools would pop up. Students would be much worse off than now and likely there would be many not attending at all (if this isn't enforced which would be harder with lots of small private institutions). If vouchers or whatever are tied to taxes (or similar) it would amplify this as basically the rich would be subsidized. So I think the overall outcome would be an even greater chasm between rich and poor AND a growing segment of the population lacking even a minimum education. Basically a recipe for social unrest and decay.

I didn't read the other responses to not be influenced. I would pack: Any money/jewelry etc. I could put my hands on. If possible, clean out bank accounts/credit cards. ​No electronic devices as they could be traced but would take older son's Nintendo game chips (have to ask though if those are linked to name somehow) Favorite stuffed toys/blankets of kids Clothing for 7+ days (layers as I am not sure of climate we are going to) Small games for entertainment (cards, favorites of all of us) ​Several books with lots of content (Bible, Shakespeare, History/Science Encyclopedia, Book with game ideas) ​Paper, pencil, markers etc. Maýbe some Legos

Actually, if you don't desperately need the income I would start by thinking about what you enjoy. Do you like crafts, history, sports, genealogy, etc.? Maybe make a list of things you are interested in (or that you may even be an expert in). Think about what you would like from a job - is it working in a team, doing good, helping kids, travelling, meeting people etc. Once you have an idea of what would be fun, think about possible jobs that go with it. Consider the place where you live and what might be offered/needed there. There are so many possibilities. If for example you enjoy knitting you could work in a shop selling craft supplies or for a magazine or you could teach classes or sell your own designs or...

I don't think we can ever get away from how we were raised. It does form us in one way or another. Which doesn't mean that we have to conform to it. Quite often people choose the opposite of what they were raised with. And that is okay. I think it is important to face our background at least to a certain extent and make a (somewhat) conscious decision. If you are raised with strict rules about how to dress, you can agree with this, or maybe you don't agree but still more or less dress that way because anything else makes you uncomfortable or you can rebel and wear the smallest bikini you can find (and of course many choices in between). But whatever you do, it was influenced by your past. If you had grown up in a different family you might have chosen differently. I really think that is fine. The only thing we should avoid is to perpetuate a behaviour/mindset that we don't actually agree with. At least if it is important. My father was strictly opposed to earrings. Pretty strange as my family was not at all religious or strict and there weren't any other similar restrictions I can think of. Still, I wouldn't have my ears pierced to honor my late father. But on the other hand I don't have any real desire for pierced earrings anyway so it isn't a hardship.

The problem is that I thik the missile off Guam is NK's way of backing down. They backed themselves in a bit of a corner when they first threatened Guam but it looks like they do not want to actually start anything (at least at this point). Obviously, Kim may decide not to go for it after all (I hope), especially if he thinks there may be a disproportionate reaction to something that is more a show of power than anything else. If he does go through with it, we can only hope that others react with condemnation/sanctions and no more.

Well, the problem in my opinion isn't just how much damage NK can do. Any major action on their part (even if with little effect) can lead to reactions which again can lead to further reactions and so on. Do I necessarily believe this conflict will lead to disaster? No. But I do think it is a risky situation and when you look at how wars have started in the past it wasn't always intentional/predictable. Often different actors get pulled into a scenario and before you know it everything goes up in flames.

Based on that, NK would be silly to attack Guam instead of the US mainland (provided they believe their weapons will go that far). If you are going down anyway, you want to inflict the maximum damage possible. However, I think they are more likely to shoot "near" to Guam as they have said. That way they keep face but an all out confrontation can be avoided if everyone keeps their cool.