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

[MistyMountain]

There are plenty of examples of successful mixed income neighborhoods worldwide that did not start out that way. Careful mixed use zoning can be done. It obviously takes time when you have very income based road based neighborhoods. Shady practices already created those low income neighborhoods in the first place. After the civil rights laws allowed people to move neighborhoods got blacklisted and cut off from the highway. The churches and civic organizations followed the flight of the middle class people in the neighborhood. The highway was built through the low income neighborhoods cutting it off from jobs and new real estate policies that blacklisted neighborhoods made it impossible to get a mortgage in these now low income neighborhoods. Adapting smart growth policies is successful in many locations.

 

High income people donate less money per capita then lower income people. Changing the tax system so they pay less is not going to help low income neighborhoods or schools at all. The gap would only widen as it has with trickle down policies. It has not happen in other locations with a less progressive tax system.

 

A lot of the stories of surviving against all odds are with kids who already learn really well. Forgetting something you learn is not always about lazines and wanting to play video games. Having 3 months off in the summer with no learning at all does not help. Learning challenges are not rare and even not having learning challenges if in the wrong environment kids can struggle. If a school is turning out kids mostly kids below level then most people in the environment are going to be at similar levels and it will be the norm. If a kid is struggling chances are they will not be the ones who are the worse off and get the help. The methods taught might be really poor plus they have to adjust for the students they are getting. The families cannot afford tutoring. In a lot of places you need to be 2 years behind to even get help. If you are reading a little below level and your math is below level chances are you will not get help. Your odds of graduating college needing remedial classes is much lower. If you have a student who struggles a bit in the wrong neighborhood it is really hard with really low odds. Sometimes no matter how the kids tries they are just not getting the right kind of help or instruction.

Edited July 16, 2017 by MistyMountain

[Frances]

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?

The book "Hillbilly Elegy" discusses this. In the author's own family, those that successfully moved to higher income levels were generally those that moved away.

[BarbecueMom]

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, she immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

 

ETA: Also, you can't conflate individual problems with economic mobility with systemic reasons for inequality: racial and gender discrimination, the widening gap between the riches and poorest, the views on the role of government in how we treat and care for those on the lower ends of the social ladder. Those things affect individual circumstances, of course, but applying group dynamics into all individual situations gets messy.

Edited July 16, 2017 by BarbecueMom

[MommyLiberty5013]

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, she immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

 

Best explanation ever! You get a cookie from me! 🪠I like this so much!!!

[MommyLiberty5013]

I am sure there's lots of reasons. Notably from this thread, is possibly that they've been told to be grateful with their lot in life so many times that they think it's uppity and ungrateful to not be content with it.

Yeah it's so not this. The people I've brushed shoulders with in this situation don't interact with those on higher rungs than them. They have not been told to be content because there is no one around who is different than them to say something so horrible. They have had opportunities to have education in school. But they don't. And it's a generational thing too (I've seen it from grandparents on right down to the third and fourth generation).

 

A lot of nice people here from many walks of life have given great comments. But thank you, at least, for starting this discussion.

[historically accurate]

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, she immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

 

My parents pushed college despite never going themselves, but it really threw them for a loop when I left home for boarding school at 15. Your story reminds me of how my mom still talks 25 years later about how she and my dad felt so out of place at every parent/family activity at my high school. She never felt comfortable because my parents were factory workers, and they were expected to make small talk with doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. She still shakes her head at one Choir concert they came to, and we sang Vivaldi's Four Seasons in its original language. They were expecting Jingle Bells and Rudolph. 

[Murphy101]

The book "Hillbilly Elegy" discusses this. In the author's own family, those that successfully moved to higher income levels were generally those that moved away.

And another reason for that...

 

Fear that their children will grow up and leave them, not just physically, but emotionally and family wise. And it's a valid fear in many ways bc as you note and as my own life has taught me - that's often what happens.

 

My foo absolutely says those things and more. But really we see this on the board here all the time in various ways. People who choose differently make others feel negatively judged, no matter how much it is not intended.

 

I home school. Oh? Aren't public schools good enough? And what's they say about those who send their kids to PS? For me, it says nothing other than that I home school, but invariably someone in PS won't take it that way.

 

Now imagine how that same dynamic plays for every single thing in their daily life at home, at school, at work in their community.

 

Because the only way out currently offering even a slim chance requires that. They have to change everything; how they speak, dress, spend their free time, their money and meet (or choose not to meet) social expectations. They become an outsider in their home and small community.

[Murphy101]

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, she immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

 

ETA: Also, you can't conflate individual problems with economic mobility with systemic reasons for inequality: racial and gender discrimination, the widening gap between the riches and poorest, the views on the role of government in how we treat and care for those on the lower ends of the social ladder. Those things affect individual circumstances, of course, but applying group dynamics into all individual situations gets messy.

You explained this dynamic excellently. Thank you. Yes. Yes times 100. I have often said my foo lives in a separate alternate universe from me. It sucks but it is what it is.

[Caroline]

This explanation is really good. Thank you for detailing it.

 

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, she immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

 

ETA: Also, you can't conflate individual problems with economic mobility with systemic reasons for inequality: racial and gender discrimination, the widening gap between the riches and poorest, the views on the role of government in how we treat and care for those on the lower ends of the social ladder. Those things affect individual circumstances, of course, but applying group dynamics into all individual situations gets messy.

[Frances]

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, eshe immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

I do think there is a growing awareness of this issue and some colleges have special programs just for first generation college students to help with this and other issues unique to these students. I do understand how it can be a problem for many students, though.

 

But other parents without college education do completely embrace the experiences of their children. My dad never went to college and my mom went to a Catholic nursing school for her RN (completely different experience from traditional college), but they placed a very, very high value on college for their children and completely welcomed the new ideas, food, music, etc we brought home and incorporated much into their own lives. I think I turned my dad into a feminist during my college years 😱.

 

But I'll readily admit there were times when I was unhappy at my Ivy Leaugue grad school, and I felt like my parents just didn't get it because it was so far outside of their experiences, but they were never anything but supportive, loving, encouraging, and proud. So I can understand how difficult it would be for those without that support and understanding.

[SKL]

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".

....

 

In my high school, the teachers very informally encouraged the promising students.  I remember many after-school chats with them.  And teachers would provide encouraging feedback on our graded papers etc.  It may not have looked like much, but it was valuable.  It made a difference.

 

I feel we shouldn't underestimate the power of inspiration.  It doesn't have to cost much to make a difference.

 

[hepatica]

 

 

Life isn't fair, get used to it. 

 

My dad used to say this. This is the opposite of what I teach my kids. I tell them that life isn't fair and they should never get used to that. Injustice (unfairness) is not ok, and we need to see it and understand it and do whatever we can to address it. 

 

The stories we tell ourselves about what we deserve and what is possible deeply impact the injustices we are able to see. My father also said the same thing about my three dyslexic children ( "life isn't fair, get over it and just work harder") because he couldn't imagine schools being anything other than what they are. 

 

The frustration of the OP is not a bad thing. Frustration is not envy. It is a tool we can use to better understand injustice. 

[Guest]

And another reason for that...

 

Fear that their children will grow up and leave them, not just physically, but emotionally and family wise. And it's a valid fear in many ways bc as you note and as my own life has taught me - that's often what happens.

 

My foo absolutely says those things and more. But really we see this on the board here all the time in various ways. People who choose differently make others feel negatively judged, no matter how much it is not intended.

 

I home school. Oh? Aren't public schools good enough? And what's they say about those who send their kids to PS? For me, it says nothing other than that I home school, but invariably someone in PS won't take it that way.

 

Now imagine how that same dynamic plays for every single thing in their daily life at home, at school, at work in their community.

 

Because the only way out currently offering even a slim chance requires that. They have to change everything; how they speak, dress, spend their free time, their money and meet (or choose not to meet) social expectations. They become an outsider in their home and small community.

That is only if they choose to stay insular. My cousins and I are first gen college, but our family didn't exclude us..we are mostly.from a group that immigrated by choice in the 1700s,or during.the westward expa sion, from a culture of literacy. We dc were expected to listen to our teachers and learn. We were to bring back interesting ideas to share, just as our ancestors did when they brought the buckboard into the city occassionally, or sent for things back east. It was expected that we observe, think, and learn and that our education would make life better for all. My dh is from recent immigrant, unskilled city poverty. Education is threatening,because it takes the social safety net cash off the table. One might fail. And one doesn't garden or keep animals if living rural, that's for peasants. One is to get a govt job and retire asap on pension. Forget anything but the practical. The 3rd gen of course has little pension opportunity, and those that couldnt get on with the state invested in themselves and succeeded. Its hard to talk to the olders, because we youngere don't have the culture of sitting and whiling away the time. To me its strange. My parents would listen to my band director at the high school.concert and come away with new info. It was a treat for them. For my inlaws, no interest. Lifelong learning is not for them, by their own choice. Edited July 16, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[TravelingChris]

My dh was first generation college and while his father never had any issues with it, his mom really felt inadequate. She didn't like me because she thought I took dh away from the area. What she didn't understand was that dh was desperate to get away from that neighborhood/section of town. She refused to talk to dh for 3 or 4 days when he signed the papers to attend Officer Training School and serve his country. One reason I think she was resentful is that she was forced by her parents to leave high school and go to work. Also, she was left with three unsuccesful sons and the only son to graduate college was going away. But he had gone to a college away and had even been spending the last summer away too. So the wall existed for his mom but not for his dad. It may have been because his father interacted with wealthy people (he was both a milk driver delivering to stores and restaurants and also a school bus driver/limo driver but the schools were either private or the kids were special needs).

 

As to success, statistically it seems like it is very early childhood along with genetics that plays the biggest role. The first studies of this kind were using books in the home to differentiate environment. But then they found even more accurate predictors were things like vocabulary levels of parents and how much time they spent talking with their kids. I don't see anyway you can legislate anything about that- we have to all dumb down our language? Our family supports books for young children in poverty. I have done tutoring of Title One kids. But I can't save everyone or maybe anyone. And I sure as hell don't want idiotic policies like we can't teach physics or encourage mechanical engineering because it is somehow elite. The problem of schools without good programs has been around a long time., In the late 70's, we had a kid transfer into our high school in the DC area because his school in WY didn't have enough classes for him to go to college.

[SKL]

Interesting thoughts about how less-educated parents may feel about kids joining that other world.  I have never really given much thought to how my parents may have felt about their kids making that transition to a lesser or greater degree.  I do recall a few moments when I was very young and said something insensitive.  I guess it must have been a quiet struggle for them.  After all, they were the ones who always wanted us to go to college.  It probably helped that they had been to community college / regional state college campus when we were kids, though that was still far removed from "campus life."

[goldberry]

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.   

 

 

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. 

 

Thanks for sharing these experiences.  I do think though that it requires a pretty specific combination of circumstances (in addition to awesome physical and mental stamina-kudos to you guys!) that not everyone is capable of, even if they desired it.

[regentrude]

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

Thank you for explaining this. If these cutural aspects are such a big obstacle to social mobility, isn't that something that no policies etc can cure? If parents aren't not just pushing their kids to better themselves, but instead ostracize them and hold them back, what can society do to counteract this?

 

It also raises another question: why do some cultures of immigrants not have this problem? They arrive with nothing, and parents who often have little education themselves value and push education for their kids. What makes them different? Why do they not suffer from the hillbilly elegy syndrome?

[goldberry]

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.

 

I would be happy if they just stopped trying to get rid of low income housing where it already is.  Most existing towns have a mix already.  The problem is the lower areas are slowly being forced out and the lower income people have no where left to live that is close to where they work.  I think that zoning should ensure at a minimum that there are enough affordable areas for the people who work in that area to live in that area.  That can be done without mandating an apartment complex next to McMansions.

 

In the example and question about tax money, the trailer parks I mentioned are a perfect example.  The parks are in pretty bad shape.  The push is to declare them unlivable and substandard, and thus pressure the owner to sell out the park to developers.  They then give the developers tax incentives to develop the lot into upper class homes.  What if instead they offered grant money to the residents to clean up and upgrade?  I can answer that for my area.. that's welfare!  That's giving people something they didn't work for!  Well, why does a developer who is going to make a ton of money on his upperclass homes need tax incentives more than lower income residents need help updating their homes?  That's okay, because that's "business".

 

There is a moral position that it is just not right to keep driving low income people away because you want nicer homes in the neighborhood.  

[goldberry]

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?  

 

Sorry, I meant to respond and then got distracted reading about what happened to teachers during the Great Depression.  :ohmy:  :sad:

 

I was specifically thinking about the concept that a certain level of education was something all children deserved, regardless of where they lived (rural is a good example) or their income level.   But I am actually interested in hearing how a free market would help in poor and disadvantaged areas where the funds are just not there.  Until this point, no, I have not heard a valid argument for that. Maybe another schooling discussion though?

[creekland]

I am sure there's lots of reasons.  Notably from this thread, is possibly that they've been told to be grateful with their lot in life so many times that they think it's uppity and ungrateful to not be content with it.

 

Perhaps by those they know as others have mentioned.  No one on this board is saying it - except you.

 

A lot of the stories of surviving against all odds are with kids who already learn really well. Forgetting something you learn is not always about lazines and wanting to play video games. Having 3 months off in the summer with no learning at all does not help. Learning challenges are not rare and even not having learning challenges if in the wrong environment kids can struggle. If a school is turning out kids mostly kids below level then most people in the environment are going to be at similar levels and it will be the norm. If a kid is struggling chances are they will not be the ones who are the worse off and get the help. The methods taught might be really poor plus they have to adjust for the students they are getting. The families cannot afford tutoring. In a lot of places you need to be 2 years behind to even get help. If you are reading a little below level and your math is below level chances are you will not get help. Your odds of graduating college needing remedial classes is much lower. If you have a student who struggles a bit in the wrong neighborhood it is really hard with really low odds. Sometimes no matter how the kids tries they are just not getting the right kind of help or instruction.

 

I don't dispute the rest of what I've quoted, but with this (underlined) aspect, I was talking about capable, neurotypical kids - specifically, those in my classes I've taught.  I'll admit I got a chuckle thinking of how literally all the kids in my classes have understood what I meant (with 99% coming on board) and on a homeschool board about education, someone gets nitpicky.   :lol:

 

But then too, I realized that the part you've underlined is also a huge part of the problem, at least in our average school district.  Many of the teachers, admin, parents all feel their kids can't keep up with the geniuses that exist elsewhere, so they lower the bar and expectations.  Hubby and I have heard speeches from admin talking about just that... it always makes me furious.  The kids in my school district can fit the bell curve just like the ones I went to school with.  They are smart enough.  They may or may not have a privileged background (same as the ps where I went), but barring FAS, dyslexia, or similar other learning disabilities (since the majority do not have them) they CAN TOO keep up if reached so they put their heart into it.

 

There's a reason I have a standing offer of employment from my school should I ever want to go full time.  The handful of long term assignments I've done have pretty darn good success with all levels of students, and in math + science.  The few times folks have asked me for references for something or another, I've told them to call the school and ask to speak with any teacher in the math/science (sometimes others too) or kid 10th grade or higher.

 

Let a kid know they can do something - really can do it - they aren't stupid, and build a team atmosphere in your class (not team tests, but "team" in that everyone wants to learn/pass) and what you get can, indeed, be incredible - right up there on par with the good high school I attended myself. Kids try hard.  They want to learn when it's both interesting and they feel/see results of affirmation. The Bio Keystone is notoriously difficult for many kids in our state.  The semester I filled in full time only one of my students failed it.  I regret not being able to reach her TBH.  There truly are some tough issues with some kids, but it doesn't have to be the majority.

 

But yes, too many probably do believe they can't because folks have told them they can't.

 

Here's the thing with social mobility. Education creates a door, but in order to have a door, you need a wall to put it in. And when you step through that door, you are in another room. And you can't undo that. You will always know what it's like to be in that room, and your family and parents will never know what that's like unless they step through it themselves.

 

Every one of my friends who dropped out of college did so because they couldn't be in "that other room", away from their parents and grandparents and siblings. One of my friends just packed up and left college one day. She's now a single parent, living with relatives, working in fast food. And she's struggled, but she's happy, because that is a life that is familiar and doesn't demand she live in a world she wasn't raised in.

 

About three years into college, I came home for Christmas with a CD of our college's acapella group holiday performance. Basically, a knock off of Straight No Chaser. I played it excitedly while we put up the tree and told my mom (single parent, no college) all about the group's concert before break. I didn't pay attention to her reaction at the time.

 

Years later we were listening to Christmas songs on the radio, and when Straight No Chaser came on, she immediately turned it off. She told me she hates that group. Not because the music is bad, but because the music represents something she isn't part of: the college experience. I was a freaking music major, but I couldn't even share music with her because it means something different on opposite sides of that wall.

 

Nobody tells you this when you are a first-gen college student. And this part is nearly always left out of the conversation on mobility and success, because we aren't all having this conversation in the same "room".

 

ETA: Also, you can't conflate individual problems with economic mobility with systemic reasons for inequality: racial and gender discrimination, the widening gap between the riches and poorest, the views on the role of government in how we treat and care for those on the lower ends of the social ladder. Those things affect individual circumstances, of course, but applying group dynamics into all individual situations gets messy.

 

I think you're onto something - the difference between whether success can happen or likely won't.  My parents were both first gen college students, as was my hubby, and absolutely none experienced what you did.  My in-laws and grandparents enjoyed seeing their offspring's success and reveled in it - often bragging about it.  They love listening to college stories and while sometimes wistful that they didn't get to enjoy it themselves (esp my one grandmother and my FIL), they are super darn proud of their kids and wanting more success from their grandkids.  My entire family and in-laws are proud of middle son for making it into Med School (and proud of my others too, but Med School is an additional jump no one has done before).

 

And another reason for that...

 

Fear that their children will grow up and leave them, not just physically, but emotionally and family wise. And it's a valid fear in many ways bc as you note and as my own life has taught me - that's often what happens.

 

My foo absolutely says those things and more. But really we see this on the board here all the time in various ways. People who choose differently make others feel negatively judged, no matter how much it is not intended.

 

I home school. Oh? Aren't public schools good enough? And what's they say about those who send their kids to PS? For me, it says nothing other than that I home school, but invariably someone in PS won't take it that way.

 

Now imagine how that same dynamic plays for every single thing in their daily life at home, at school, at work in their community.

 

Because the only way out currently offering even a slim chance requires that. They have to change everything; how they speak, dress, spend their free time, their money and meet (or choose not to meet) social expectations. They become an outsider in their home and small community.

 

Again, I think this is all family dynamics and probably depends upon whether envy is there or "we all win when the team succeeds" is the general feeling.  My folks left their homes, but they're still super close to siblings (and grandparents when they were alive).  My mom has two sisters who never went to college and one who did.  All four often travel together now in their retirement years with the two college grads helping support (when needed) the two who went straight to the workforce - not unlike how my wealthy friends at that private school paid my way so I could go along on things.

 

My dad used to say this. This is the opposite of what I teach my kids. I tell them that life isn't fair and they should never get used to that. Injustice (unfairness) is not ok, and we need to see it and understand it and do whatever we can to address it. 

 

The stories we tell ourselves about what we deserve and what is possible deeply impact the injustices we are able to see. My father also said the same thing about my three dyslexic children ( "life isn't fair, get over it and just work harder") because he couldn't imagine schools being anything other than what they are. 

 

The frustration of the OP is not a bad thing. Frustration is not envy. It is a tool we can use to better understand injustice. 

 

I guess it's all in the delivery.  My kids have all grown up trying to fight unfairness that they see - trying to make the world a little better - just like their parents and grandparents do.  It's a big part of why they do what they do.  Youngest took a lower paying job this summer to work at a camp for underprivileged kids in an attempt to make their world better.  He's had some pretty good influence so far from what I can tell - he's quite loved.  Unfortunately, he's only seeing the kids for a week at a time, but hopefully every little drop helps.  They at least have a really good role model to consider - to realize the possibility is there.

 

But if one is going to wait until life is fair before engaging in it, it will be an awfully long wait I'm afraid.

Edited July 17, 2017 by creekland

[Bootsie]

My dad used to say this. This is the opposite of what I teach my kids. I tell them that life isn't fair and they should never get used to that. Injustice (unfairness) is not ok, and we need to see it and understand it and do whatever we can to address it. 

 

I can think of a lot of things in life that I do not think are "fair" that are not caused by what I would consider "injustice"  

[creekland]

Thank you for explaining this. If these cutural aspects are such a big obstacle to social mobility, isn't that something that no policies etc can cure? If parents aren't not just pushing their kids to better themselves, but instead ostracize them and hold them back, what can society do to counteract this?

 

It also raises another question: why do some cultures of immigrants not have this problem? They arrive with nothing, and parents who often have little education themselves value and push education for their kids. What makes them different? Why do they not suffer from the hillbilly elegy syndrome?

 

My thoughts exactly.  This is quite possibly the real issue that needs solving, but I don't think it can be solved (easily) among those prone to envy rather than team success.  They are forcing kids to choose between succeeding (assuming someone reaches them letting them know it can happen and guides them along the way) and belonging.  That's a tough choice for most kids - even when parents are what we'd consider incredibly bad (aka abuse and neglect).

 

More birth lottery winners and losers regardless of that starting bank account.

[BarbecueMom]

Thank you for explaining this. If these cutural aspects are such a big obstacle to social mobility, isn't that something that no policies etc can cure? If parents aren't not just pushing their kids to better themselves, but instead ostracize them and hold them back, what can society do to counteract this?

I don't know. Having role models and mentors in place to cover the gaps and ignorance helps. I suspect that shortening the inequality gaps between the haves and have-nots would make higher education less threatening. I wonder if the rapid growth of technology has contributed to separation. I'm curious if this is less of an issue in places that have a rigorous standard curriculum before college, rather than shunting the teaching of the liberal arts off onto universities. I have a sinus headache so I'm sorry if I'm not making sense with my musings.

 

 

It also raises another question: why do some cultures of immigrants not have this problem? They arrive with nothing, and parents who often have little education themselves value and push education for their kids. What makes them different? Why do they not suffer from the hillbilly elegy syndrome?

I imagine because immigrants start from a place of leaving. Even without formal education, they are already valuing learning - a new language, a new culture. But again, individual situations differ. In Richard Rodriguez's Hunger of Memory, he suffered the same separation of "the wall", and he was was a child of immigrants.

 

I suspect homeschooling parents fit the same "already leaving" category, too.

Edited July 16, 2017 by BarbecueMom

[Bootsie]

I would be happy if they just stopped trying to get rid of low income housing where it already is.  Most existing towns have a mix already.  The problem is the lower areas are slowly being forced out and the lower income people have no where left to live that is close to where they work.  I think that zoning should ensure at a minimum that there are enough affordable areas for the people who work in that area to live in that area.  That can be done without mandating an apartment complex next to McMansions.

 

In the example and question about tax money, the trailer parks I mentioned are a perfect example.  The parks are in pretty bad shape.  The push is to declare them unlivable and substandard, and thus pressure the owner to sell out the park to developers.  They then give the developers tax incentives to develop the lot into upper class homes.  What if instead they offered grant money to the residents to clean up and upgrade?  I can answer that for my area.. that's welfare!  That's giving people something they didn't work for!  Well, why does a developer who is going to make a ton of money on his upperclass homes need tax incentives more than lower income residents need help updating their homes?  That's okay, because that's "business".

 

There is a moral position that it is just not right to keep driving low income people away because you want nicer homes in the neighborhood.  

How would this type of zoning work?  Most zoning laws are about what type of building can be placed on land and the use of those buildings.  I am having difficulty seeing how zoning could ensure that people who work in the area can live there.  This would depend on price controls.  Would you place controls on selling prices or just rental prices?  How do you determine which places in the neighborhood are subject to those price controls?  What if there are 100 places available and 120 people want to live there?  How will they be allocated?

 

There is a big difference in providing subsidies and providing tax incentives.  To provide a subsidy, of $100 the government has to have $100 from somewhere.   Providing a tax incentive simply means not collecting certain taxes--it is foregone revenue.  I am not necessarily in favor of tax incentives, but there is a big difference in giving someone $100 to improve the area and telling a new developer that they will have a break on their taxes and pay only $200 instead of $300.  

[Bootsie]

Sorry, I meant to respond and then got distracted reading about what happened to teachers during the Great Depression.  :ohmy:  :sad:

 

I was specifically thinking about the concept that a certain level of education was something all children deserved, regardless of where they lived (rural is a good example) or their income level.   But I am actually interested in hearing how a free market would help in poor and disadvantaged areas where the funds are just not there.  Until this point, no, I have not heard a valid argument for that. Maybe another schooling discussion though?

As it is now the government spends $X dollars to provide education in those areas.  Many economists would argue that if those same $X were given in subsidies to the disadvantaged or to provide for vouchers and the free market then directed those dollars to those who are able to provide the best education, the education system would improve.  

[goldberry]

How would this type of zoning work?  Most zoning laws are about what type of building can be placed on land and the use of those buildings.  I am having difficulty seeing how zoning could ensure that people who work in the area can live there.  This would depend on price controls.  Would you place controls on selling prices or just rental prices?  How do you determine which places in the neighborhood are subject to those price controls?  What if there are 100 places available and 120 people want to live there?  How will they be allocated?

 

There is a big difference in providing subsidies and providing tax incentives.  To provide a subsidy, of $100 the government has to have $100 from somewhere.   Providing a tax incentive simply means not collecting certain taxes--it is foregone revenue.  I am not necessarily in favor of tax incentives, but there is a big difference in giving someone $100 to improve the area and telling a new developer that they will have a break on their taxes and pay only $200 instead of $300.  

 

My town is having quite a budget crisis due to too much of those non-collected tax dollars.  I disagree that there is a "big difference" between the two.  At the end of the budget year, the effect is the same, the money in the coffers is reduced by the amount.

 

Re zoning, not sure if this is zoning specifically or more control exercised directly by the city?  We had an area open for development, and the city specifically either zoned or approved that area for a certain level of housing that was deemed "affordable".  I assumed it was through zoning, but maybe it was something else.  I do think the city has ways of controlling things how they want.  In our area, the city can approve or not approve an area of new development be zoned for multifamily homes, townhomes, homes with tiny lots, homes with large lots, etc. They're not controlling prices, but all those factors will affect the prices.

 

In the trailer park example, the city can condemn or target an area for violations with the intent of driving the owner to sell.  Of course they could argue they didn't "intend" the trailer park be replaced by nicer looking $500,000 homes... but it's pretty obvious how it works. Getting rid of the park through political or other pressure accomplishes the goal. 

[creekland]

All the anecdotes in the world don't obscure the data - the inequality gap is widening, and social mobility is not high.

 

The suggestion to just bootstrap it, and dont complain, is ludicrous and simplistic.

 

It's this way by design. Better policy can start to close that gap, but better policy will never come about when so many people tell themselves comforting lies about why other people struggle.

 

Ok, y'all have me convinced to no longer worry about it.  I'll just be glad my family was different and quit trying to assist kids/adults who got the short end of the stick with the birth lottery.*  Donations and advice will cease and we can take what we have to enjoy more ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*If I could, but, 'tis not my nature since in my real life experiences, it can make a world of difference.  Obviously in other's experiences, it's different and I don't think anyone can fix those.)

[Frances]

All the anecdotes in the world don't obscure the data - the inequality gap is widening, and social mobility is not high.

 

The suggestion to just bootstrap it, and dont complain, is ludicrous and simplistic.

 

It's this way by design. Better policy can start to close that gap, but better policy will never come about when so many people tell themselves comforting lies about why other people struggle.

I agree completely with your first sentence. But I don't think anyone on here is saying not to complain, but more to complain and then do something both personally and big picture. I'm a life long liberal who would love to see at a minimum a much better social safety net and stronger free education options and preferably more of a cradle to grave social welfare system like in some European countries. But at least in the US, that is not remotely what we have right now, so people also have to make choices in the current reality that will maximize success, however they define it, for them and their families. And many have simply been trying to offer ideas and options, often based on personal experience.

[creekland]

But the data is pretty clear. The odds are stacked in someone's favour, and it isn't the poor.

 

Did anyone ever say they weren't?  I thought that was the subject we were talking about with "Life's Not Fair" in this thread.  Some of us are talking about ways one can try to overcome it rather than accept it as destiny.

[goldberry]

Why is it not possible to do both of those things?  To advocate for better policy that makes it easier for those who want to get out of poverty, AND to teach our own children that they can and should do everything they can to better themselves?  To be both thankful for what you have, and yet still wish and advocate for a more fair playing ground?  I don't see why any of these things are mutually exclusive.

[creekland]

Thanks but my hard working, smart and resilient family who can't afford to own a home doesn't need advice and donations.

 

We need policies which aim to reduce inequality. Using your vote to elect people who have the will to do so is of more use than condescending so called help.

 

I'm glad my family wasn't too proud to accept advice and donations (like in the form of my scholarship).  It definitely helped the whole family.  I can definitely see where similar pride hurts kids in my school district when parents won't sign up for free lunches or fill out a FAFSA for their kids.

 

I'm pretty sure folks in your country would get upset if I tried to vote there... I do what I can in my own country - haven't once missed a vote, but it is pretty obvious to me at this point that there are certain things even policy can't fix.

[goldberry]

they aren't. But right now, this thread was posted by an individual who was talking about being discouraged.

 

I still consider what I said relevant.  When someone is discouraged, it doesn't always help to just say "get over it".  Sometimes it helps to acknowledge that the reasons for discouragement are real.  It sounds like the OP is doing what she can to raise responsible and productive human beings.  She's already doing that part.  

 

Maybe I don't understand your comment?

[Frances]

What options? Other than be a good parent and keep your chin up? Work three jobs? News flash - the poor do that already. Between the two of us, dh and I have five paid jobs. He never takes a day off.

 

These issues are systemic. Not individual.

I really don't know enough about your country or your personal situation to advise anything.

 

While I definitely agree there are systemic issues in the US, at least occasionally, there are also personal choices involved. I definitely see it in my own extended family.

[creekland]

Ok. We're back to poor people just needing to change their attitude. Lovely.

 

Well, you gotta admit, yours sucks ATM - presumably due to your situation.  ;)

 

In our country folks starting trying to change the system in the 1930s.  It's been awhile and many folks are continuing to try to change it.  It'll still take awhile I suspect.  It's a nice goal to keep aiming for, but in the meantime I think advice and donations trying to help each other get a hand up are still helpful for many - at least - in my local area.

 

I guess you're upset that none of us are Grand Pumba of the Universe and can instantly make everything into the Ideal World many of us would like?

[SereneHome]

Thanks for sharing these experiences.  I do think though that it requires a pretty specific combination of circumstances (in addition to awesome physical and mental stamina-kudos to you guys!) that not everyone is capable of, even if they desired it.

 

May be.  I know that for me  - I didn't envision any other options.  I had to get an education bc I was raised with the idea that you get a profession and support yourself.  There were no alternatives in my mind.  So, I worked to pay for college as I went.  If I thought I could do hair and nails or be a dog groomer or anything else - I probably wouldn't have gone bc I didn't like it.  It was years later, when I was getting my Master's that I actually enjoyed school.

 

We were only in the country for a few years at that poing, I only heard of things like scholarships and financial aid.  And I thought scholarships were only for people with excellent grades in HS ( and I didn't even have a standard HS diploma) and financial aid was for people who couldn't work but wanted to go to school.  But since I could work - why would I be eligible for govt assistance?

[MommyLiberty5013]

Jeez you people can bring out the rude and nasty. No, my attitude doesn't suck. Im a hard, creative worker setting up a business. Still isn't enough because political context matters.

 

If y'all stopped buying the neoliberal line, that might help, ta very much.

I think people are asking fair questions. I haven't seen any "rude and nasty." Asking for answers from you on your points/opinions is fair game in an online forum. I was still wondering if you had an answer for me, in fact, a few pages back, I asked you about what "real disadvantage" is and how you would describe that. Maybe you did answer it and I missed it in the shuffle, if so, I am sorry and I'll have to go back.

[maize]

I always find the emphasis on getting a college degree and moving up the job chain to get out of poverty a bit myopic. Yes, that can work for some people, but the reality is that a lot of the available and necessary jobs in this country are not high prestige white collar jobs. Our economy needs construction workers, sewer technicians, child care providers, fast food servers, grocery store clerks, farm laborers, bus drivers, etc.

 

It shouldn't actually be necessary for people to move "up" from these jobs in order to provide a decent quality of life for their families. A sustainable solution to generational poverty needs to provide for actual living wages, affordable healthcare, etc. for people who are willing and able to work regardless of what kind of job they do.

[Murphy101]

Why is it not possible to do both of those things? To advocate for better policy that makes it easier for those who want to get out of poverty, AND to teach our own children that they can and should do everything they can to better themselves? To be both thankful for what you have, and yet still wish and advocate for a more fair playing ground? I don't see why any of these things are mutually exclusive.

They aren't. Which is why it seems very condescending and patronizing to tell people they need to learn to be happy with what they have. They are learning to be happy as they can be with what they have. They don't have much choice otherwise.

[MommyLiberty5013]

You could start by reading the article I linked. There's plenty of info out there about what disadvantage looks like for people who care to inform themselves.

Um ok. But I asked you, as in a dialogue. I do care, but I was trying to converse not just get a link. You obviously have an opinion. And, what if I wanted yours and not an author's?

 

Also, let's say I was considering learning more on a topic from someone with whom I likely disagree. How likely am I to care anymore, or listen as well, if someone gives me a link versus taking some time to write a response to my fair question that may also include said link?

 

N/m.

[Bootsie]

My town is having quite a budget crisis due to too much of those non-collected tax dollars.  I disagree that there is a "big difference" between the two.  At the end of the budget year, the effect is the same, the money in the coffers is reduced by the amount.

 

Re zoning, not sure if this is zoning specifically or more control exercised directly by the city?  We had an area open for development, and the city specifically either zoned or approved that area for a certain level of housing that was deemed "affordable".  I assumed it was through zoning, but maybe it was something else.  I do think the city has ways of controlling things how they want.  In our area, the city can approve or not approve an area of new development be zoned for multifamily homes, townhomes, homes with tiny lots, homes with large lots, etc. They're not controlling prices, but all those factors will affect the prices.

 

In the trailer park example, the city can condemn or target an area for violations with the intent of driving the owner to sell.  Of course they could argue they didn't "intend" the trailer park be replaced by nicer looking $500,000 homes... but it's pretty obvious how it works. Getting rid of the park through political or other pressure accomplishes the goal. 

I am not in favor of tax incentives, but there is a difference in the amount in the city's coffers at the end of the year.

 

Scenario 1--Property is of low value--city collects $0 in property taxes.  City pays $100 for subsidy--net effect is -$100

Scenario 2--Property is sold and now has a property value of $1000.  Instead of taxing at a 30% rate, the city gives an incentive of taxing it at only 20%.  City collects $200--net effect is +$200.  

 

The argument for the tax incentive is that without it the property wouldn't be developed and the city would collect $0.  (This assumption depends greatly upon local market conditions.)  The city officials have a financial incentive for the land to be used for the highest value use because of property tax collections.  

[MommyLiberty5013]

I always find the emphasis on getting a college degree and moving up the job chain to get out of poverty a bit myopic. Yes, that can work for some people, but the reality is that a lot of the available and necessary jobs in this country are not high prestige white collar jobs. Our economy needs construction workers, sewer technicians, child care providers, fast food servers, grocery store clerks, farm laborers, bus drivers, etc.

 

It shouldn't actually be necessary for people to move "up" from these jobs in order to provide a decent quality of life for their families. A sustainable solution to generational poverty needs to provide for actual living wages, affordable healthcare, etc. for people who are willing and able to work regardless of what kind of job they do.

Yes, and in fact the problem is that many Americans do not want to do these jobs - many Americans think these jobs are beneath them. There is a glut in the job market - so many have BAs and cannot find good jobs - they are all going after the same finite number of jobs in the same industries.

 

Electricians, welders, plumbers, hair stylists, etc.. This is where the money is now for most people who are willing to learn the trades and do them.

 

Two or three years ago, FIL who is a farmer, reported to DH and me that there was a local job posting for a heavy machinery operator - starting pay = $80k. No joke. DH's cousin taught himself to be an electrician and went to get his necessary licenses, etc.. Now he employs a few of his brothers and he is rolling in the business - just a low income Iowa farm kid who saw a need and was willing to fulfill it. Farmers cannot find good laborers. I have a friend whose husband owns a large recycling business that they started from scratch. They cannot find long-lasting, good workers. People come for like a week or two and quit - often without giving notice. See, I think there is money to be made and opportunity to be grasped, but maybe people think they are too good for it or that they HAVE to go to get a degree.

 

A past boyfriend of mine, had to make ends meet so he began loading UPS trucks at night. He did a great job. Now, he manages 3 UPS hubs. Another old boyfriend's dad worked tossing bags for Delta. He worked his way up and retired from executive management. One of the CEOs of USBank began his career as a teller. I'm sure others can share similar stories.

 

Now that several of states are going to or have increase minimum wage significantly, hopefully there can be more sustainable living situations for people.

[frogger]

You could start by reading the article I linked. There's plenty of info out there about what disadvantage looks like for people who care to inform themselves.

 

 

I read the article. I could agree with some things. For example, anyone should be able to attend a different school than what they are zoned for as far as public school is concerned. I don't understand the concept that people must prove they live in a certain zone and if not they are charged with stealing an education. Kind of defeats the purpose of public education doesn't it?

 

 

I realize the author wasn't promoting the following but writing about it.

 

 

The problem with framing the whole thing as a competition though is messed up. We are supposed to compete on some arbitrary idea of "fair" for limited resources? To make it fair we restrict what others can do? This is like saying there isn't enough food and to make things equal we won't let parents garden to feed their children. That makes the problem worse.

 

If you want to make housing more affordable you don't just give some people money to help them afford a unit which is then not available for someone else who also needs a unit. That just raises the cost. You focus on policy that increases the number of units. It is hyper focusing on equality that can get you in trouble.

 

Sticking with the housing theme for this post I would say our government does unfairly use eminent domain and zoning. In many areas (I can only speak for the places I know about) people use zoning to keep others from using their own property how they need to by ,say, building a mother-in-law apartment, by not allowing high density housing which would start at a lower price point, and by making codes not just about safety. This makes it hard for families to share space, to sub rent, or to afford a smaller space. This means it is harder to find ways to save or spend on other things like education.

 

The end goal should be to make things better for everyone not to make sure that person over there can't do something for their kid that you can't do. In the end that attitude makes everyone worse off.

[creekland]

Yes, and in fact the problem is that many Americans do not want to do these jobs - many Americans think these jobs are beneath them. There is a glut in the job market - so many have BAs and cannot find good jobs - they are all going after the same finite number of jobs in the same industries.

 

Electricians, welders, plumbers, hair stylists, etc.. This is where the money is now for most people who are willing to learn the trades and do them.

 

...

 

Now that several of states are going to or have increase minimum wage significantly, hopefully there can be more sustainable living situations for people.

 

The top depends upon where one is.  Around here, hair stylists don't really make all that much.  Even places that have trade jobs listed are advertising roughly $20/hour (or less). That beats minimum wage, but not a lot of college degreed jobs.  The glut you mention doesn't really show up TBH.

 

Here are the stats for the US:

 

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

 

 

Personally, I think the best job for an individual is the one that suits them the best - not any one particular path.  A good tattoo artist is going to make a better living doing that than trying to become an engineer (in most cases).

 

I fully agree that folks doing any legal job (well) should be making a living wage for it.  A good part of our personal way of trying to fix a small segment of inequity is tipping very well at restaurants and hotels when we travel.  I don't care if a waitress or maid makes a 6 figure income TBH.  If they're doing their job well, we like to do what we can to reward that since the real world doesn't.

 

We vote - always - but that's not where we end trying to make things better for others.

[frogger]

Let me sum up something Sadie that maybe we can agree on. Yes, there is inequality in how government is used. The educated and/or those with more money can use the government to their own advantage more so then those busy working 3 jobs to stay afloat. We should work to stop this.

 

We probably disagree on how to get there. I would rather see a smaller government. Others want it large to provide things but I can never figure out how they are going to control it to do just what they want. It doesn't seem to work after that.

 

I don't see how or even why we should stop parents from doing the best for their kids though I think we should help each other and those without friends and family more. I think we are more helpful to others when we recognize how much we have to offer. There are times in my life I didn't have much to offer but now I'm trying to make up for it because people were helping me all along the way. That is where being thankful comes into play.

 

It is very likely I have more to be thankful for and for that I'm sorry if I offended someone. Life can be hard. It helps me along the way and no it doesn't mean I don't want to see some change.

[Guest2]

I think it takes a few generations to get there. Kind of like that old story that a professor told the med students on the first day of class, He showed the slide of a relaxed student napping under a tree and told the med students that if they studied really hard, this could,be one of their grandkids.

Look at the lifestyle of your grandparents. In most cases, I see a dramatic lessening in amount of work and physical difficulty of such. You help your kids . Sometimes that entails giving advice. My grandfather didn't get to see go to high school and made a huge impact telling his kids ," I hope you can have a job where you get to sit down ." His kids graduated high school and many of them went to night school to get a college degree. My generation gets to sit down as much as we want.

[Guest]

 

Sticking with the housing theme for this post I would say our government does unfairly use eminent domain and zoning. In many areas (I can only speak for the places I know about) people use zoning to keep others from using their own property how they need to by ,say, building a mother-in-law apartment, by not allowing high density housing which would start at a lower price point, and by making codes not just about safety. This makes it hard for families to share space, to sub rent, or to afford a smaller space. This means it is harder to find ways to save or spend on other things like education.

 

The end goal should be to make things better for everyone not to make sure that person over there can't do something for their kid that you can't do. In the end that attitude makes everyone worse off.

Re:zoning. Zoning in many places is limited by infrastructure..you can move a family into every bedroom, garage, and barn stall,but at some point cash is needed to expand the sewer and water system. The wells aren't going to drill themselves, and the sewer plant will need more capacity. That costs money. Edited July 17, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[goldberry]

The city officials have a financial incentive for the land to be used for the highest value use because of property tax collections.

True! The city does the best financially if all the property is of high value. The question then is what moral and societal obligations do we have to our fellow (low income) humans, and how do we BALANCE that with financial considerations?

 

I don't hold that you can ignore financial considerations, but right now it seems tilted the other direction. I don't believe that all decisions should be made primarily based on profitability. I think we've gone too far that direction, and I don't see how more free market fixes it.

[frogger]

Re:zoning. Zoning in many places is limited by infrastructure..you can move a family into every bedroom, garage, and barn stall,but at some point cash is needed to expand the sewer and water system. The wells aren't going to drill themselves, and the sewer plant will need more capacity. That costs money.

That is true but often developers in my particular area aren't shut down by city inspectors they are shut down by neighborhood meetings, petitions and complaints. It would be cheaper for developers to pay or the state to pay for upgraded sewer then expanding the sewer system further and further down the road and then having to build the roads to go with it for everyone to live one of the most spread out cities in the nation.

[Reefgazer]

I think this is because immigrants are a different breed of people.  How many people would have the courage, drive, and cleverness to pack up a few belongings, move to a country where they did not know the language, had no social support, had no family support, and often are starting out working a job that is less prestigious than the one they worked in their country of origin?  It's a huge jump off an unknown cliff, and if you don't succeed there is the risk of crashing into the ground.  Not many of us would be willing and able to pull that off, so people who can already have drive, determination, and grit that many don't have, and this provides what they need to be successful.  Contrast that with a person of the Hillbilly Elegy variety - someone born into the richest nation in the world, who has a safety net (even if it's imperfect) to catch them if they careen off a cliff,  who's family culture does not push (for example) academic success, and who is tempted by the (opioid) drugs and alcohol that are so prevalent in their communities, and the drive, determination, and grit that carries an immigrant through is never developed.

Thank you for explaining this. If these cutural aspects are such a big obstacle to social mobility, isn't that something that no policies etc can cure? If parents aren't not just pushing their kids to better themselves, but instead ostracize them and hold them back, what can society do to counteract this?

 

It also raises another question: why do some cultures of immigrants not have this problem? They arrive with nothing, and parents who often have little education themselves value and push education for their kids. What makes them different? Why do they not suffer from the hillbilly elegy syndrome?

 

[Reefgazer]

I think this is so very true, especially the bolded.  It goes right to the heart of individual choices affecting life outcomes, what a person can do to make their circumstances better, and setting yourself up for those "lucky breaks" that can propel you forward.

I do want to say two more things.

First there a lot of ways to help your kids "get ahead," that aren't financial. I was a single mom going to school full time and working, my parents usually babysat for free. They also let me live at home for really inexpensive rent. They STILL often babysit for free for all 10 of their grandkids. You (general you)do other things like not just provide support, but also encouragement to keep trying. Just ensuring your kids believe they CAN take steps to help themselves will help them.

The other thing is, I believe that the vast majority of people can do *something* to improve their situation, even if they can't do EVERYTHING. So maybe someone can't go to school for whatever reason. But maybe they can start babysitting a neighbors kid to try to put some money in savings. Or maybe they trade babysitting with the neighbor in order to pick up a class. Or maybe they find a way to manage an online class or two. Or whatever. I am not suggesting any one or all of these are in any way *the* answer for anyone or even any one person. All I am really saying is that I think in most situations there are choice that can be made or things that can be tried. And I think this is true for all income levels. Saying that is NOT saying "just work harder". It's saying...what choice are you making and are there other choices you could make. It's saying, on an individual level, you aren't going to change big policies over night and can't change anything that has happened in the past. But, what can you do or change? That answer is going to be different for everyone because everyone is in different situations.