Why Aren’t The Boats Rising With The Tides?
The stock market is banging out record highs this summer. So why isn’t America celebrating?
Ooh-Ooh! Call on me, I know! Because No one has any money to gamble, Sparky.
There’s a reason that people feel so disconnected from Wall Street. Only a fraction of Americans directly own stocks, and they tend to be wealthier… The richer and more educated people are, the more likely they are to invest in the stock market. Some 80 percent of households earning $75,000 a year or more are in stocks, including retirement accounts, Pew found, while just 15 percent of those earning less than $30,000 have invested.
Got it. Wealthy people are wealthy. So why aren’t the poors investing? Perhaps they are too busy eating Marie Antoinette’s cake?
The gains for the wealthiest serve to reinforce some economists’ views that inequality in the U.S. is getting worse.
Only some economists are saying that? I’d like to know which economists are saying inequality is NOT getting worse! But more to the point, what could allow the rich to become richer without increasing inequality? Why do everyday, sturdy and sober Americans think the deck is stacked against them?
It is a mystery.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Tengrain
Fully caffeinated with twice the sugar, unabashedly liberal. Award-winning Americans United blogger, blogs at Mock Paper Scissors, and sometimes at Crooks and Liars.
You can follow @Tengrain on Twitter, or you might see him enjoying coffee somewhere in Seattle at any given moment of the day.
176 responses to Why Aren’t The Boats Rising With The Tides?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
arc99 July 4th, 2014 at 13:36
Stock prices are a reflection in part of the current and projected profitability of a company. The question is, why are profitable companies not hiring, in this country anyway.
NMAXXS July 4th, 2014 at 13:43
“why are profitable companies not hiring”
Why should they, when people are willing to work for free? As a salary nonexempt employee, overtime is expected because of the great “benefits” that come with the position. The only problem; the benefits have virtually disappeared and the attitude of corporate America is “you should be grateful to have a job at all”. Point is, it’s not just the poors that are getting pimped.
Linda1961 July 4th, 2014 at 16:10
I’m a salary nonexempt employee, but get paid for overtime. Only the salary exempt employees where I work don’t get paid for overtime. Maybe it’s the opposite where you work.
Good point – we are all getting pimped.
NMAXXS July 4th, 2014 at 16:26
You’re right, I got it ass-backwards. I’m salary exempt.
mea_mark July 4th, 2014 at 19:31
Stock prices also reflect how much excess capital is out there in the hands of the rich. The rich want to put there capital somewhere they think it will grow so they invest in the stock market because they really don’t have to do much to make money that way. When there is an excess of capital in the hands of the rich they bid up the values of what they want. It is not so much the projected profitability of the company as it is how profitable is it’s stock compared to the other guy’s stock. It really is more like gambling for the rich.
In my opinion the trick is to learn when to get out. The rich are overbuying and falsely raising the value of a lot of stocks. If companies are really hiring and expanding then the value of their stock is justified. Speculation by the rich and the resultant high prices is not justification of value. It is just gambling driving up the price. It looks to me like now might be a good time to get out. I don’t really know though, just a hunch.
The real hiring will come when the excess capital in the hands of the few is returned to the many to spend.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 17:31
“The question is, why are profitable companies not hiring”
Because they are getting the work done with their existing labor force due to the unprecedented gains in productivity that Alan Greenspan praised all during the nineties. Many jobs have been automated out of existence.
The question people should be asking is “What skills do I have that people would be willing to pay for?”. If the answer is “none”, then they need to get some more schooling. In my region, there is a shortage of nurses. In other regions there is a shortage of construction workers. If you’re a young person in good health who doesn’t mind working two-weeks away from home every three weeks, the fracking industry has some well-paying jobs. A company in my region that manufactures and services CNC machines is constantly advertising for people who like to tinker with electronics or cars. They are willing to provide all of the training needed to become a tech support specialist for their products. They can’t seem to find enough people willing to do this type of work.
arc99 July 4th, 2014 at 13:36
Stock prices are a reflection in part of the current and projected profitability of a company. The question is, why are profitable companies not hiring, in this country anyway.
NMAXXS July 4th, 2014 at 13:43
“why are profitable companies not hiring”
Why should they, when people are willing to work for free? As a salary nonexempt employee, unpaid overtime is expected because of the great “benefits” that come with the position. The only problem; the benefits have virtually disappeared and the attitude of corporate America is “you should be grateful to have a job at all”. Point is, it’s not just the poors that are getting pimped.
Linda1961 July 4th, 2014 at 16:10
I’m a salary nonexempt employee, but get paid for overtime. Only the salary exempt employees where I work don’t get paid for overtime. Maybe it’s the opposite where you work.
Good point – we are all getting pimped.
NMAXXS July 4th, 2014 at 16:26
You’re right, I got it ass-backwards. I’m salary exempt.
mea_mark July 4th, 2014 at 19:31
Stock prices also reflect how much excess capital is out there in the hands of the rich. The rich want to put there capital somewhere they think it will grow so they invest in the stock market because they really don’t have to do much to make money that way. When there is an excess of capital in the hands of the rich they bid up the values of what they want. It is not so much the projected profitability of the company as it is how profitable is it’s stock compared to the other guy’s stock. It really is more like gambling for the rich.
In my opinion the trick is to learn when to get out. The rich are overbuying and falsely raising the value of a lot of stocks. If companies are really hiring and expanding then the value of their stock is justified. Speculation by the rich and the resultant high prices is not justification of value. It is just gambling driving up the price. It looks to me like now might be a good time to get out. I don’t really know though, just a hunch.
The real hiring will come when the excess capital in the hands of the few is returned to the many to spend.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 17:31
“The question is, why are profitable companies not hiring”
Because they are getting the work done with their existing labor force due to the unprecedented gains in productivity that Alan Greenspan praised all during the nineties. Many jobs have been automated out of existence.
The question people should be asking is “What skills do I have that people would be willing to pay for?”. If the answer is “none”, then they need to get some more schooling. In my region, there is a shortage of nurses. In other regions there is a shortage of construction workers. If you’re a young person in good health who doesn’t mind working two-weeks away from home every three weeks, the fracking industry has some well-paying jobs. A company in my region that manufactures and services CNC machines is constantly advertising for people who like to tinker with electronics or cars. They are willing to provide all of the training needed to become a tech support specialist for their products. They can’t seem to find enough people willing to do this type of work.
Red Eye Robot July 4th, 2014 at 14:03
current stock prices are a reflection of the federal reserve pumping $80,000,000,000 a month into the market. Earlier in the year when there was a hint the fed might cut back, the market dropped 500+ points in 2 sessions.
Obewon July 4th, 2014 at 17:23
Yesterday the DJIA closed up +92 to record 17,068. In April 2014: -The Federal Reserve voted unanimously to trim its (Money-Supply expansion e.g. “Printing”) monthly bond-buying by $10 billion to a monthly pace of $45 billion.-WSJ 4//14.
Whoever misinforms you, obviously isn’t fact-based e.g. “a hint the fed might cut back”-? The FED voted “Unanimously” to shrink money supply Monetary Policy. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12855.htm
Actual-Result>”U.S. stocks rose after the report, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing up 0.3% at (Then) record 16580.84. The yield on benchmark 10-year Treasurys fell to 2.647% as the price rose”-WSJ updated 4/30/14 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579533861135944336
Did you know the FED by law returns $80B+ annually in profits = $400 B+ to taxpayers during the Obama Admin? Do you also know “$5 trillion Intergovernmental Holdings”-Are Federal Reserve Surpluses and Social Security & Medicare trustfund surpluses financed 55% domestically? http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner
SteveD July 4th, 2014 at 19:02
Quantitative Easing a Tax?
By John Carney
March 29, 2012 (CNBC) — In the last of his four lectures to students at George Washington University, Ben Bernanke explained how the Fed’s quantitative easing programs worked. As it turns out, they were akin to a tax hike.
This aspect of government asset purchase-and-resale-for-profit programs is not well understood.
A tax takes dollars out of the private sector, leaving households and businesses with fewer dollars and the government with more dollars. When the government buys something for $10 and sells it back to the private sector for $12, the net effect is the same as if the government had taxed away those $2.
Former FED chair Ben Bernanke never did come out and call quantitative easing a tax. But he came close.
“The Fed’s asset purchases are not government spending, because the assets the Fed acquired will ultimately be sold back into the market. Indeed, the Fed has made money on its purchases so far, transferring about $200 billion to the Treasury from 2009 through 2011, money that benefited taxpayers by reducing the federal deficit,” Bernanke explains in one of the prepared slides.
Here’s a good rule of thumb. If something reduces the federal deficit, it is either the equivalent of a spending cut or a tax hike.
SteveD July 4th, 2014 at 18:57
The purpose of QE is to reduce interest rates while convincing the public this is beneficial. It is beneficial, but only to those who invest in stocks and real estate. Low rates are detrimental to the vast majority of Americans who try to save via bank accounts, insurance accounts and other “safe,” interest-paying investments — i.e. the middle class and the poor.
QE, deficit reduction, debt reduction and interest rate reduction all have been sold to the American public as economically stimulative and beneficial to the poor and middle classes.
QE does not add dollars to the economy, for the simple reason that those dollars already are in the economy. T-securities are nothing more than deposits (similar to savings accounts) at the Federal Reserve Bank. To redeem your T-securities, the federal government merely transfers your dollars from your T-security account to your checking account.
Unless you believe that transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account is stimulative, you readily can see that QE adds no dollars to the economy, and so stimulates nothing.
But, why is QE recessionary? Because by lowering interest rates, QE reduces the amount of interest the federal government pays into the private economy.
That is why The FED and the rich bankers love QE. It is the gap that makes the rich rich. If there were no gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the gap, the richer the rich are.
The FED, the politicians, the media and the mainstream economists have been paid by the rich to widen the gap. That is the purpose of QE.
Red Eye Robot July 4th, 2014 at 14:03
current stock prices are a reflection of the federal reserve pumping $80,000,000,000 a month into the market. Earlier in the year when there was a hint the fed might cut back, the market dropped 500+ points in 2 sessions.
Obewon July 4th, 2014 at 17:23
Yesterday the DJIA closed up +92 to record 17,068. In April 2014: -The Federal Reserve voted unanimously to trim its (Money-Supply expansion e.g. “Printing”) monthly bond-buying by $10 billion to a monthly pace of $45 billion.-WSJ.
Who misinformed you? e.g. “a hint the fed might cut back”-? The FED voted “Unanimously” to shrink money supply via Congress mandating the FRB’s audited independent oversight over U.S. “Monetary Policy.” http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12855.htm The Actual-Result>”U.S. stocks rose after the report, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing up 0.3% at (Then) record 16580.84. The yield on benchmark 10-year Treasurys fell to 2.647% as the price rose”-WSJ updated 4/30/14 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579533861135944336 Did you know the FED by law returns $80B+ annually in profits = $400 B+ to taxpayers during the Obama Admin? Do you also know rising “$5 trillion Intergovernmental Holdings”-Are Federal Reserve “Public Debt” Surpluses and Social Security & Medicare trustfund surpluses financed 55% domestically? http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner
SteveD July 4th, 2014 at 19:02
Quantitative Easing a Tax?
By John Carney
March 29, 2012 (CNBC) — In the last of his four lectures to students at George Washington University, Ben Bernanke explained how the Fed’s quantitative easing programs worked. As it turns out, they were akin to a tax hike.
This aspect of government asset purchase-and-resale-for-profit programs is not well understood.
A tax takes dollars out of the private sector, leaving households and businesses with fewer dollars and the government with more dollars. When the government buys something for $10 and sells it back to the private sector for $12, the net effect is the same as if the government had taxed away those $2.
Former FED chair Ben Bernanke never did come out and call quantitative easing a tax. But he came close.
“The Fed’s asset purchases are not government spending, because the assets the Fed acquired will ultimately be sold back into the market. Indeed, the Fed has made money on its purchases so far, transferring about $200 billion to the Treasury from 2009 through 2011, money that benefited taxpayers by reducing the federal deficit,” Bernanke explains in one of the prepared slides.
Here’s a good rule of thumb. If something reduces the federal deficit, it is either the equivalent of a spending cut or a tax hike.
SteveD July 4th, 2014 at 18:57
The purpose of QE is to reduce interest rates while convincing the public this is beneficial. It is beneficial, but only to those who invest in stocks and real estate. Low rates are detrimental to the vast majority of Americans who try to save via bank accounts, insurance accounts and other “safe,” interest-paying investments — i.e. the middle class and the poor.
QE, deficit reduction, debt reduction and interest rate reduction all have been sold to the American public as economically stimulative and beneficial to the poor and middle classes.
QE does not add dollars to the economy, for the simple reason that those dollars already are in the economy. T-securities are nothing more than deposits (similar to savings accounts) at the Federal Reserve Bank. To redeem your T-securities, the federal government merely transfers your dollars from your T-security account to your checking account.
Unless you believe that transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account is stimulative, you readily can see that QE adds no dollars to the economy, and so stimulates nothing.
But, why is QE recessionary? Because by lowering interest rates, QE reduces the amount of interest the federal government pays into the private economy.
That is why The FED and the rich bankers love QE. It is the gap that makes the rich rich. If there were no gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the gap, the richer the rich are.
The FED, the politicians, the media and the mainstream economists have been paid by the rich to widen the gap. That is the purpose of QE.
Shades July 4th, 2014 at 16:31
Let’s ask Romney. He knows all about the lazy 47%.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 17:49
Romney didn’t say the 47% were lazy. He said they would vote for Obama and it would be impossible to change their minds.
The Quote “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Shades July 4th, 2014 at 18:06
If you can honestly read that quote and not realize Romney is calling them lazy, well, no wonder you embarrass yourself here regularly.
R.J. Carter July 4th, 2014 at 19:44
So if these people aren’t dependent, then shut them off, let them take personal responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:47
Are you working in tandem now.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 07:31
RJC, do you seriously believe 47% of the US population does not take personal responsibility? Sheesh, another troll who gets talking points from bumper stickers.
R.J. Carter July 5th, 2014 at 13:24
Oh no. I think that estimate is WAY low.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 16:00
RJ, here’s my take on it:
We are being asked to accept the proposition that the vast majority of people have the kind of self-discipline needed to willingly work even though their basic needs (food, shelter) are being met by government assistance. There is great variation among individuals. Some workaholics are inherently self-motivated and can’t seem to stop working. For people like this, it may be difficult to understand how anyone could actually prefer not to work. But from an evolutionary perspective, I think it makes perfect sense.
Humans are mammals. Mammals are biologically programmed to consume calories whenever available, to conserve energy whenever possible, and to mate whenever possible. For mammals living in the natural environment, these behaviors greatly increase an individual’s odds of surviving and reproducing. As humans, we have inherited these biological traits.
Unlike other mammals, humans also have the ability to improve their environment by planting, nurturing, and harvesting crops, raising livestock, harvesting wool, weaving cloth, and making clothing, harvesting trees and building structures, fashioning instruments such as microscopes, and carefully observing the natural world in order to create things like Penicillin that protect humans from disease.
All of these activities involve significant expenditures of energy, which in unnatural. A key function of parenting and socialization is to help young people to do things which are unnatural: to work or study harder than they are inclined to, to restrict caloric intake, and to delay reproduction. This is what our parents and teachers called “self-discipline”.
In recent decades it has become unfashionable to speak about self-discipline. Many parents and teachers think that their job is to be a child’s “friend”. They feel that if a child is angry with them, that THEY (the adult) must be doing something wrong. I see it differently. I told my kids that if they are NEVER angry with me, then I am not doing my job as a parent. It was never my intent to make them angry. But as a parent, if you make your kids do chores and study when they don’t want to, they are sometimes going to be angry with you. And as a teacher, if you make your students work harder than they want to, they are going to call you names. But good parents and good teachers know that sometimes you have to push young people out of their comfort zones in order for them to grow. You have to push them to do things which nature did not program them to do.
If you walk into a shopping mall, you will probably see a lot of obese people. They may be very hard-working people, but in most cases they are obese because they lack self-discipline when it comes to food. I struggle with this myself. Self-discipline is HARD. People who maintain a healthy weight ni the presence of so much tempting food should be applauded. And people who choose to work in the presence of so many government handouts should also be applauded. These behaviors are not natural for most people. They require self-discipline to overcome the natural instincts to eat and relax.
If you’ve ever worked in a retail setting or in a factory, you have probably noticed coworkers who were laggards; people who did not carry their share of the load and were happy to let others pick up the slack. In my experience, it seems as though perhaps 10-20% of coworkers are not self-motivated and need external pressure from a manager or peer pressure to get them working at the same level as their coworkers. Your mileage may vary. But whatever the percentage, why would it be any different among the general population?
Getting out of bed and putting in an 8-hour day five times a week is not natural. Walking away from a plate of freshly-baked toll house cookies is not natural. Stopping at second base when you’re a couple of horny teenagers is not natural. It all requires self-discipline which is something we learn when our parents and teachers make us do things which are NOT natural.
My local pizza shop is owned and operated by a family of Guatemalan immigrants. They had some bad experiences with American teens that they hired. They tell me “American kids don’t want to work.”. Try finding a teenager who is willing to cut your elderly parent’s lawn in the summer. Too many parents are making life too easy for their kids, and failing to teach them about work, healthy eating, etc. Saying “yes” is easy. If your kids are NEVER angry with you, you’re not doing your job as a parent.
The US high school dropout rate was 15% in 1972. It is 10% today. That’s a big improvement, but it still means that one in ten youth entering the job market lacks a high school diploma. Public school is provided free of charge. But getting out of bed and showing up at school requires self-discipline and/or a parent who is unwilling to let their kid fail.
Throughout the ages, parents and societies have made rules and provided structures to help people rise above their natural instincts in order to achieve their full human potential. Parents and societies have encouraged people to work, to study, to eat healthy foods, and to control their reproductive instincts. But every society has found that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. In every society, there have been many people who choose not to work or study, who choose to eat unhealthy foods or amounts of food, and who are unwilling to control their mating instincts. And in every society, these people have had a certain amount of scorn heaped upon them.
We are born with the instincts that evolution has provided us. We are programmed to conserve energy. It is our natural state. The only question is whether our modern society, which depends upon workforce participation, can survive in its present form when many of the external motivators are eliminated. Our government, like so many parents and teachers, is making life too easy for young people. It is a culture of low expectations. The best parents, teachers, and societies are the ones that push people out of their comfort zones and provide incentives for them to rise above their natural instincts to achieve their full potential.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 21:09
Why don’t you try to read it honestly and put your bias aside. He didn’t use the word lazy and if you read it in the context of the meeting you would understand.
He was talking about campaign strategy and was conceding the 47% who fell in this category were not going to vote for someone who is promoting self reliance. He was going to focus on the other 53%.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:45
Why don’t you try to read it honestly and put your elitism aside. Read it in the context of who were present there, whom he was speaking to, what he was promising them. He was judging, he was labeling, he was dismissing, he was promising he would not only ignore them during the campaign but work against them and work for the plutocrats present. It was pledge to them, and no he wasn’t going to focus on anything other than the 1%.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 07:48
You wouldn’t know honest if it bit you. He clearly shows disdain for the 47% who are “dependent on the government.” That’s elite-speak for lazy. Sheesh, what is it with you and your organic inabilities?
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 12:06
You believe what you want your bias view to say. The fact that he never said they were lazy doesn’t matter to those who want that word implied.
It is very clear what he was saying. The 47% who depend on the Democrats for benefits will continue to vote for them; no matter what. It is common sense that folks would not vote to cut off a benefit they enjoy.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 13:18
Talk about bias. You’re tap dancing like Gene Kelly because you desperately want this to be about something other than Romney insulting the 47% by insinuating they enjoy being dependent on the government. Considering a plurality of that 47% included disabled, vets and elderly on Medicare, he stepped in it big-time. But his intent was clear. He couldn’t give a speech calling those people lazy so he refers to them as gov-dependent. It’s called a dog whistle.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:54
I’m not saying what he said was smart, but I understood how he meant it; that he was not going to get the 47% to vote for him.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:41
Semantics arguments don’t excuse your willful neglect of the substance and insult; you arrogance still loses.
Obewon July 4th, 2014 at 20:11
Funny how Romney’s landslide only delivered the lazy 47% vs the motivated 51% voter majority reelecting POTUS Obama 3:2 (D) 332 to (R) 206-Mitt’nRyan. Botz-Wass never learns CBO proves “No more than 10% of households pay no net federal income tax (largely because of Reagan’s Earned Income child Tax Credits for families.)” GOP’s fallen and can’t get up beyond 47% in POTUS elections of ’12. ’08. ’00, ’96, ’92… The last time repubs had a popular vote majority was GWB’s 2004 and last Century’s 1988!
/|*~*~*RIP GOP*~*~*|
||~Died Nov 4 2008~||
|~A victim of extreme ignorance~|
Shades July 4th, 2014 at 16:31
Let’s ask Romney. He knows all about the lazy 47%.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 17:49
Romney didn’t say the 47% were lazy. He said they would vote for Obama and it would be impossible to change their minds.
The Quote “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Shades July 4th, 2014 at 18:06
If you can honestly read that quote and not realize Romney is calling them lazy, well, no wonder you embarrass yourself here regularly. It’s as if I said “Bob Waas has consistently shown an organic inability to comprehend facts despite others taking an inordinate amount of time to teach him, then denying I called you dumb.
R.J. Carter July 4th, 2014 at 19:44
So if these people aren’t dependent, then shut them off, let them take personal responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:47
Are you working in tandem now.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 07:31
RJC, do you seriously believe 47% of the US population does not take personal responsibility?
R.J. Carter July 5th, 2014 at 13:24
Oh no. I think that estimate is WAY low.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 16:00
RJ, here’s my take on it:
We are being asked to accept the proposition that the vast majority of people have the kind of self-discipline needed to willingly work even though their basic needs (food, shelter) are being met by government assistance. There is great variation among individuals. Some workaholics are inherently self-motivated and can’t seem to stop working. For people like this, it may be difficult to understand how anyone could actually prefer not to work. But from an evolutionary perspective, I think it makes perfect sense.
Humans are mammals. Mammals are biologically programmed to consume calories whenever available, to conserve energy whenever possible, and to mate whenever possible. For mammals living in the natural environment, these behaviors greatly increase an individual’s odds of surviving and reproducing. As humans, we have inherited these biological traits.
Unlike other mammals, humans also have the ability to improve their environment by planting, nurturing, and harvesting crops, raising livestock, harvesting wool, weaving cloth, and making clothing, harvesting trees and building structures, fashioning instruments such as microscopes, and carefully observing the natural world in order to create things like Penicillin that protect humans from disease.
All of these activities involve significant expenditures of energy, which in unnatural. A key function of parenting and socialization is to help young people to do things which are unnatural: to work or study harder than they are inclined to, to restrict caloric intake, and to delay reproduction. This is what our parents and teachers called “self-discipline”.
In recent decades it has become unfashionable to speak about self-discipline. Many parents and teachers think that their job is to be a child’s “friend”. They feel that if a child is angry with them, that THEY (the adult) must be doing something wrong. I see it differently. I told my kids that if they are NEVER angry with me, then I am not doing my job as a parent. It was never my intent to make them angry. But as a parent, if you make your kids do chores and study when they don’t want to, they are sometimes going to be angry with you. And as a teacher, if you make your students work harder than they want to, they are going to call you names. But good parents and good teachers know that sometimes you have to push young people out of their comfort zones in order for them to grow. You have to push them to do things which nature did not program them to do.
If you walk into a shopping mall, you will probably see a lot of obese people. They may be very hard-working people, but in most cases they are obese because they lack self-discipline when it comes to food. I struggle with this myself. Self-discipline is HARD. People who maintain a healthy weight ni the presence of so much tempting food should be applauded. And people who choose to work in the presence of so many government handouts should also be applauded. These behaviors are not natural for most people. They require self-discipline to overcome the natural instincts to eat and relax.
If you’ve ever worked in a retail setting or in a factory, you have probably noticed coworkers who were laggards; people who did not carry their share of the load and were happy to let others pick up the slack. In my experience, it seems as though perhaps 10-20% of coworkers are not self-motivated and need external pressure from a manager or peer pressure to get them working at the same level as their coworkers. Your mileage may vary. But whatever the percentage, why would it be any different among the general population?
Getting out of bed and putting in an 8-hour day five times a week is not natural. Walking away from a plate of freshly-baked toll house cookies is not natural. Stopping at second base when you’re a couple of horny teenagers is not natural. It all requires self-discipline which is something we learn when our parents and teachers make us do things which are NOT natural.
My local pizza shop is owned and operated by a family of Guatemalan immigrants. They had some bad experiences with American teens that they hired. They tell me “American kids don’t want to work.”. Try finding a teenager who is willing to cut your elderly parent’s lawn in the summer. Too many parents are making life too easy for their kids, and failing to teach them about work, healthy eating, etc. Saying “yes” is easy. If your kids are NEVER angry with you, you’re not doing your job as a parent.
The US high school dropout rate was 15% in 1972. It is 10% today. That’s a big improvement, but it still means that one in ten youth entering the job market lacks a high school diploma. Public school is provided free of charge. But getting out of bed and showing up at school requires self-discipline and/or a parent who is unwilling to let their kid fail.
Throughout the ages, parents and societies have made rules and provided structures to help people rise above their natural instincts in order to achieve their full human potential. Parents and societies have encouraged people to work, to study, to eat healthy foods, and to control their reproductive instincts. But every society has found that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. In every society, there have been many people who choose not to work or study, who choose to eat unhealthy foods or amounts of food, and who are unwilling to control their mating instincts. And in every society, these people have had a certain amount of scorn heaped upon them.
We are born with the instincts that evolution has provided us. We are programmed to conserve energy. It is our natural state. The only question is whether our modern society, which depends upon workforce participation, can survive in its present form when many of the external motivators are eliminated. Our government, like so many parents and teachers, is making life too easy for young people. It is a culture of low expectations. The best parents, teachers, and societies are the ones that push people out of their comfort zones and provide incentives for them to rise above their natural instincts to achieve their full potential.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 21:09
Why don’t you try to read it honestly and put your bias aside. He didn’t use the word lazy and if you read it in the context of the meeting you would understand.
He was talking about campaign strategy and was conceding the 47% who fell in this category were not going to vote for someone who is promoting self reliance. He was going to focus on the other 53%.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:45
Why don’t you try to read it honestly and put your elitism aside. Read it in the context of who were present there, whom he was speaking to, what he was promising them. He was judging, he was labeling, he was dismissing, he was promising he would not only ignore them (47%) during the campaign but work against them and work for the plutocrats present. It was pledge to them, and no he wasn’t going to focus on anything other than the 1%.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 07:48
Funny, the sock puppet master is lecturing me about honesty. He (Romney) clearly shows disdain for the 47% who are “dependent on the government.” That’s elite-speak for lazy. Sheesh, what is it with you?
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 12:06
You believe what you want your bias view to say. The fact that he never said they were lazy doesn’t matter to those who want that word implied.
It is very clear what he was saying. The 47% who depend on the Democrats for benefits will continue to vote for them; no matter what. It is common sense that folks would not vote to cut off a benefit they enjoy.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 13:18
Talk about bias. You’re tap dancing like Gene Kelly because you desperately want this to be about something other than Romney insulting the 47% by insinuating they enjoy being dependent on the government. Considering a plurality of that 47% included disabled, vets and elderly on Medicare, he stepped in it big-time. But his intent was clear. He couldn’t give a speech calling those people lazy so he refers to them as gov-dependent. It’s called a dog whistle.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:54
I’m not saying what he said was smart, but I understood how he meant it; that he was not going to get the 47% to vote for him.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:41
Semantics arguments don’t excuse your willful neglect of the substance and insult; your arrogance still loses.
Obewon July 4th, 2014 at 20:11
Funny how Romney’s landslide only delivered the lazy 47% vs the motivated 51% voter majority reelecting POTUS Obama 3:2 (D) 332 to (R) 206-Mitt’nRyan. Botz-Wass never learns CBO proves “No more than 10% of households pay no net federal income tax (largely because of Reagan’s Earned Income child Tax Credits for families.)” GOP’s fallen and can’t get up beyond 47% in POTUS elections of ’12. ’08. ’00, ’96, ’92… The last time repubs had a popular vote majority was GWB’s 2004 and last Century’s 1988!
/|*~*~*RIP GOP*~*~*|
||~Died Nov 4 2008~||
|~A victim of extreme ignorance~|
R.J. Carter July 4th, 2014 at 19:42
Inequality is not getting worse. In fact, the Gini index has remained relatively flat since 1990. It’s only taken a mild uptick, in 2010.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 21:15
Inequality does not equate to lack of opportunity. Most times it equates to hard work and ability, plus making good choices.
Carla Akins July 4th, 2014 at 22:18
But it does mean a lack of equal opportunity.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 22:33
It amounts to applying yourself. You often hear about two individuals growing up in the same environment. One studies hard, gets a good education and becomes a professional and the other one drops out of school and barely gets by. They both had the same opportunity, one applied himself, the other didn’t.
Should the one who worked hard now have to share what he earned with the one who didn’t put in as much effort?
Dwendt44 July 4th, 2014 at 23:45
Sounds like a plan. Except when that company movers it’s factory to a dirt poor country that can put $1 a hour worker at the work bench for 12 hours a day, six days a week and not worry about pollution, working conditions, or benefits of any kind. then the educated worker loses his house, goes on food stamps to feed his kids and starts collecting unemployment. He’s in the same boat now as the drop out, if not worse off. He had few survival skills that the drop out has already learned; and the several other factories, offices etc.. that he might have a chance to work at are also moving to a sweatshop overseas.
To make matters worse, he turns on squawk radio or FakeNews and hears that he’s a ‘taker’ and a ‘deadbeat’ and a ‘useless eater’.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:56
What has this to do with personal responsibility for preparing yourself for the workplace? When I couldn’t find a job I started my own business just to support my family.
Why are the companies moving offshore? They can make a bigger profit by operating in a more business friendly environment that doesn’t weigh them down with endless regulations and taxes.
Also, there are plenty of jobs for unskilled labor in this country as proven by the politicians touting the need for illegal immigrants. Rather than give able bodied people free money to sit at home, have them take those jobs currently being filled by illegal immigrants and let them work their way out of poverty.
There are many people in need who cannot help themselves, but there are an equal or greater amount of people who scam the system. We need to weed out the scammers. Each month my 100 member church has a food pantry day where we give away food that we collected all month. We have been blessed to be able to provide groceries for 85 families each time.
Dwendt44 July 5th, 2014 at 12:14
To bad your opinion is baseless. The majority of the poor would take a job in a quick second if they could get one. But greedy corporations move their factories overseas because of greed, no other reason. The poor are left, usually in cities that the jobs left. A good paying job doesn’t just provide for one person or family to survive, the ripple effect provides others jobs as well. take the good job away and dozens of others lose their livelihood as well. Some poor black mother in Boston can’t and shouldn’t have to move to Texas to take a minimum wage job just so YOU feel better about her.
And BTW, those ‘families’ that your church provides food for, are they JUST members of your church like some church pantries around me? Does the person giving out the food ask? Is the food just for christians?
Some churches in my area give their food to the local city run pantry that benefits all who need it, not just church members.
Bunya July 5th, 2014 at 00:00
Well then, if that’s the case, why is it that dropouts like Rush Limbaugh make millions, while someone who studied hard and earned a college degree is struggling to find meaningful employment?
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 08:03
Hi Bunya, guess I should have read through all the comments before posting mine. Well, great minds, eh?
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 10:34
Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison all dropped out of college and became billionaires. People drop out of college for different reasons.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:47
You’re making it sound like everyone has the same abilities and drive, which has nothing to do with the environment they grew up in. A college degree isn’t a get out of jail free card. If you don’t go after what you want, it is not going to come to you.
I had a young man who while in college I hired part-time as an accounting clerk. When he finished his with his BA degree the only full-time position I had open was in the shipping department. He took the job and studied in the evening to get his MA. He then took a job as an entry level salesman in the computer sales depot. He continued to work his way up and eventually became a vice-president with the company, which was HP.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:37
Growing up in the same environment with different taxes bases supporting your education systems; and no they both do not have the same opportunity only miles apart in Inglewood and Beverly Hill public schools. The son of family that donates to a University that doesn’t apply himself does not get into the University without affirmative action to a less affluent applicant that did apply himself. The one that got in the University because of sports replaced the won that put in effort anyways. You’re views are self serving and not reality.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:39
My example said two individuals growing up in the same education system. One applies himself and makes it, the other believes all the lies about how he is a victim of an unjust society and spends the rest of his life at the complaint counter demanding his free stuff.
I believe you’re smart enough to understand and acknowledge that there are many examples like the one I posted.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 13:19
Well isn’t that straw man cozy of you, since that has nothing to do with reality. I think that you are smart enough to understand and acknowledge that your example is statistically self serving since its not the norm. No one cares about your lame statistically worthless fairy tales. We are actually parents with children in an education systems through out the country that are inherently not equal and don’t offer the same opportunity; couple that with economic realities and your words are amount to no more that what they are, mere BS.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:34
And your solution to the problem is?
AnthonyLook July 6th, 2014 at 22:21
To begin with it’s that I stop pseudo intellectual windbags that like to read their own comments thinking they sound all reasonable with their charlatan justification and lies and self serving fantasies. Why don’t you write some reality, instead of your utopian fiction that fits in your cozy box.l
Chinese Democracy July 5th, 2014 at 13:39
Im getting tired of your racist b/s
Non white Americans are lazy because they are like animals would rather take free peanuts from their Gov benefactor than forage for them . All they have to do for the peanuts is vote Democratic.
You type that racist bull chit over and over
its STILL not true and wasnt the first time you typed it
The only reason I think you continue on is because bashing and demeaning non whites gives you a stiffy
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:28
What racist remark did I post? What did I post that was not true?
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 08:00
Well, let’s see. My son and daughter-in-law struggle each month to pay their student loans in addition to all their other responsibilities. They worked their butts off and graduated with the equivalent of a home mortgage on their backs. On the other hand, you have drop-outs like Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck making millions. So, who applied themselves and who didn’t?
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:27
I couldn’t begin to respond to your post since I know nothing about your children.
I have 3 boys and 2 girls.
My two girls have always been financially responsible and have lived within their means; including paying of college student loans.
My boys didn’t buy health insurance when it was only $75.00 a month because they chose to spend their money on other things.
The two older boys continued to make poor financial decisions and although they work their butts off, they struggle to pay their monthly bills.
The youngest son learned from his siblings and went the way of his sisters and is financialiy secure.
Only one of my sons graduated from college, but the two who didn’t are making more money than the college grad, so there is no magic formula where a degree is a guarantee. It requires the desire to get ahead as well, which is what Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck had; as well as Jobs, Gates, Dell and a slew of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_dropout_billionaires
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 08:53
I have two sons with identical IT degrees from a good college. One has a decent job that he absolutely loves, but the pay is sub-par, which is tough because he has 4 kids. The youngest, works in a body shop (painting) which is what he did before getting his degree because the few jobs he could find in our region that his degree supported paid less than my customer service job.
My youngest is a new father and nothing has driven him harder to succeed. Both of my boys understand being a responsible individual and work hard at their jobs as well as being a productive member of society and their community. This is not the same world we grew up in, applying yourself is no guarantee of anything except exhaustion. The old adage of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, is no longer a valid piece of advice.
I don’t care how well it may have worked in the past, just because “in my day” worked for you, does not mean it works today. That said, I believe poverty is the overriding reason for trouble in this country and the one and only way out is education. But it’s unrealistic to think its a cure-all.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 10:25
I have a computer science degree from a good college. I choose to live in a rural area where programming jobs are scarce and the pay is far lower than in urban areas. After working 11 years for other people, I started my own business selling productivity tools for other software developers. I make less per year, on average, than I did before, but I love my work and the creative freedom that self-employment provides.
Both of my kids got degrees in fields for which very few jobs exist in this area. They both decided to live close to different cities where the jobs are more plentiful and the salaries are higher.
My son has a brand new Camaro which he drives in heavy traffic. I have a beat up old Subaru which I drive on beautiful country roads. We are each exploiting different types of opportunities.
I can relate to your son wanting to live in a particular region where the jobs are less plentiful. I made the same choice. Some people choose to relocate. From what I have read, at the national level, there is a strong demand for IT workers.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, computer programmers have an average salary of $74K, and the number of jobs is expected to increase by 8% in the next decade. Network and System Administrators earn $73K with 12% expected growth in the next decade.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 10:34
I must have misspoke, my apologies. We live in Kansas City, not a rural area.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 11:16
“We live in Kansas City, not a rural area.”
It was I who misspoke. I wrongly assumed that if IT jobs were scarce in your area, then you must be rural.
In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, my company sold a software tool used by database developers. We probably received more orders from CA, TX, NY, and WA than all other states combined. IT jobs are definitely more plentiful in some areas than in others.
I have a good friend who is dissatisfied with his current IT job, so I regularly look at IT job listings and occasionally send him links. The thing is that there are plenty of job listings, but very few in our region, and my friend is unwilling to move out of the area.
One of the best IT job websites is careers dot joelonsoftware dot com. They currently have 2216 job listings, 52 of which were posted in the past 24 hours. For an IT person who is willing to relocate, the opportunities are out there.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:01
Wow, thank you. The oldest won’t ever leave (his in-laws are here) but the youngest is just starting a family, the adorable baby I use on occasion is his first born. They’d love to get away and build a life.I will pass along the info, and just for good measure (because I’m a gma and can’t resist)
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 13:55
Okay, now I’m jealous. No grandkids here. Just two cats. (but we love ’em like grandkids!)
Another good resource is dice dot com. I searched for web developer jobs in Kansas City, KS and got 80 hits. There were 60 hits on system administrator, 19 on database administrator, 77 on software developer, and 30 on network administrator.
And don’t rule out craigslist. I often see technical job postings from reputable companies in my area.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 16:12
Hang in there. Grandbabies are everything you’ve been told. It’s to make up for growing old!
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 21:05
This is our surrogate grandchild, Brody, when he was just a wee lad.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 21:06
First time photo upload. Let’s try that again.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:06
Here’s the boy. Couldn’t add him below.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:07
or not at all. dang.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:35
Poverty perpetuates itself. In the black community 72% of births are to unwed mothers, many of them teenagers, and many of them high school dropouts. This is an area that should get the most attention. Instead of rewarding them with social programs, we need to do more like Bill Clinton promoted and show them a path off welfare and into the workplace.
There is a big difference between a helping hand and a hand-out.
A helping hand is designed to get you back on your feet. A hand-out has no expiration date, thereby providing a disincentive for becoming self reliant.
As for your boys, my brother and I are good examples to use as a comparison.
I chose to work hard at local companies with limited advancement, while my brother went where the opportunities were and he moved all around the country; leaving the comforts and family and friends.
While I had a successful career, my priority was always about being home to be a father to my 5 children. To keep them in a good school district, I chose to commute 20 miles rather than locate closer to my work.
My brother was a good father to his 2 children, but he left all the heavy lifting to his wife as his jobs had him traveling all over the world.
I helped my brother get is first professional job as an accounting clerk at a company where I worked. He left the company 17 years later with the title of vice president. Again, the same opportunities were available for me to advance like he did, but I had different priorities; and now have no regrets.
Here is a little bio on my brother. It was an older one, but you can google his name to see what he is currently doing.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/William+R.+Waas+Named+President+%26+COO+–+Empowered+Solutions…-a053085531
I can probably relate better with your sons than my younger brother as they seem to have chosen to put family first, rather than relocate.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:14
Yes, poverty is the root of all evil and education is the way out. Unfortunately, the world is not the same place it was when you and I were starting out. Having a college education, pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is no longer an effective means of digging yourself out of poverty,
mea_mark July 5th, 2014 at 13:49
We need to start by raising the minimum wage.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:13
Let the free market determine the wages for each job, not the government. Obewon is a advocate for raising the minimum wage, but when I challenge him to hire someone at minimum wage with no experience in his business he goes strangely quiet. He invokes the NIMBY response by his silence.
Here is an economists take on the subject.
“The most direct impact minimum wage implementation has on the economy is unemployment among young workers and unskilled workers. The two chief views for and against minimum wage implementation are supply-side economists argue that raising minimum wage levels increase unemployment, and demand side economists believe raising minimum wage lowers the poverty level and decreases underemployment levels. Economist Craig Garthwaite argues the former, citing fellow economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker, “a higher minimum [wage] will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills.”
The BLS report for June shows 6.1% unemployment rate, a U6 rate of 12.1%, but the group most affected by raising the minimum wages are already suffering from having to compete with a surplus of employees who have work experience who are taking jobs that would normally be filled by the young or unskilled workers.
June 2014 Unemployment rate for:
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)………………………………. 21%
Black or African American…………………………………………10.7%
Obewon July 5th, 2014 at 20:10
Wass? Seattle Tacoma minimum wage is $15/hr because one person raising a child no longer needs government subsidies of their employers wages. Their workers newly Increased disposable income generates far greater sales than the meager wage cost to businesses. Wages are a mere 7% of U.S. record $16 T GDP which is also obviously the average $35K U.S. wage and cost per $500,000 revenue.
I try to ignore Wass’ 0% credibility, however: “but when I challenge him to hire someone at minimum wage with no experience in his business he goes strangely quiet”-Wass’ Alzheimer’s prevents his remembering anything honest or accurate, especially regarding me or my posts.
While In college during the 80’s I founded my first IT firm with $100 per month yellow page advertising. I’ve always paid all workers no less than $15 to $18/Hr in 1980-81 when the minimum wage was $3.10 to $3.35/hr. My competitors paid their best workers $7-$8/hr. Even back then in 1980 I always paid new workers $12 to $15/hr, or double my competition. I’ve rarely had to retrain for any position as I’ve never experienced average worker turnover of 33%. Since the 1990’s no IT worker hired by firm has ever been paid less than $75/Hr and up to $125/Hr.
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 09:15
Please excuse me for not believing you, but your statistical data has a history of being less than accurate.
Obewon July 6th, 2014 at 12:59
In other words Wass admits he’s full of crap as usual, unable to dispute or debunk a single thing I’ve posted.
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 19:45
Oh I remember alright. Even when you are presented with multiple sources of evidence you have refused to acknowledge that you were wrong; so there is no point to give credence to anything you write; especially your statistical stats.
You comments are nothing but baseless attacks and your demeanor lacks civility.
Obewon July 6th, 2014 at 20:44
Thanks again as always for continually proving you remain unable to accurately debunk anything posted above, or anywhere here on LL. How’s your delusional “Where’s the birth certificate” birther crusade going? Lol. Canadian tarpit critter Ted Cruz until 2016~
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 17:23
What is your suggestion for getting out of poverty if you think that developing skills and working hard won’t work.
America offers opportunities like no other country in the world, which is probably why so many are entering illegally. I’ve seen first hand what success looks like by someone arriving in our country totally broke when I visit the local nail place. The folks are from Vietnam and they created their own jobs and are doing very well without any government help. If you look at the Asian unemployment rate you will see that it is 5.1%. We also saw the resiliency of the Vietnam refugees after Katrina. Their community was the first to get rebuilt.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 17:44
I have no issue with working hard, but hard work alone doesn’t fix the issue any more.There are simply not enough manufacturing type jobs to cover the large amount of people. As I mentioned previously, education is the key. And I’m not even speaking of college. I’m talking elementary and high school.
Are you aware that prisons gauge how many new prisons they’ll build based on the number of 3rd graders that can read at a 3rd grade level. Children, very young children should be receiving at the very least an adequate education. Not testing bullshit, but taught reading, math and critical thinking skills. Teachers able to connect to these students should be glorified, not screamed at by the likes of Chris Christie and should be paid accordingly and have job security. THis is the path out of poverty.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 21:52
Teacher job security is some of the problems facing public education today. Schools are not able to get rid of poor teachers and the students suffer.
I have long advocated teaching students according to their interests. Not all students are destined for college, but they all receive the same basic education in HS and those who only get a HS education are not trained for many of the jobs available today. It would be great if they would gear a students lessons towards a field of their interest, such as; wood working, cooking, electrical, etc. To make matters worse, every time the government raises the minimum wage it shuts out more of those looking for their first jobs. When companies have to pay a higher wage they get to choose from a larger, more experienced work force.
When you say, “not testing” are you referring to Common Core?
So, what is your solution to fix the problem?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 00:31
Even with tenure teachers ca be fired for cause. Your claim of getting rid of bad teachers is a sound bite and not accurate. All students do not get the same education, students learn sat different rate and through different means.Teaching to a skill is not helpful, students need a well-rounded education, even in subjects they don’t like. Failure to teach math and history create life-long problems. I have no idea what your reference is to minimum wage. But as far as testing goes, it does not reflect a students true abilities, nor does it have anything to do with a teachers skill to reach a student.
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 09:09
Teaching a skill is definitely worth it. Note, I said beginning in HS, so they already had 8 years of a well rounded education. HS should consist of English, math and a trade.
There are no guarantees that teaching history is going to make them ready for the job market. I saw interviews with college students and some had no idea what was happening in the world today. Some even thought Cheney was still the VP.
My comment about minimum wage was to illustrate that they can’t compete for even entry level jobs, which is why the unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds is over 20%.
You keep repeating the problem as you see it, but what do you suggest as a solution?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 09:29
If you were arguing that history (or pick a core subject) in college I would agree. High School is a time to provide a well-rounded education in all core subjects. Certainly that does not mean that HS elective courses shouldn’t include hands on skills (let’s say woodshop) but these are and should be electives and not the primary goal.
Your Cheney example is exactly why core classes need to be taught. I have several friends that teach k-12 and my favorite Aunt is a recently retired English teacher. For those post students that can’r complete a written job application, it’s a very big deal. A student can learn a hands on skill, find a good job and make a decent living – but when it comes to applying for and agreeing to the terms of a mortgage, they very often get screwed because they lack a well-rounded education.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I know what it’s not. It’s not vilifying teachers because they deserve bargaining rights, it’s not doing away with tenure and for all that is holy – it is not basing the teachers skill on her students ability to complete a standardized test.
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 19:04
I didn’t suggest not teaching math and English in HS. What I suggested is adding vocational training in a students field of interest and let that be the dominate part of study. My nephew hated HS because he found it boring. He dropped out and went to a trade school where his field of interest was being taught; along with English and math. He graduated with above average grades and looked forward to attending each day.
The Cheney example actually counters your claim that they learn basic civics in HS since they were college students being interviewed.
My previous example of the downside to raising the minimum wage; which a Nobel laureate concurs, is that it hurts the inexperienced worker. You said they can get hands-on experience, but they can’t do that if they can’t get hired. Consider, an employer is forced to pay $15.00 an hour as a beginning wage; he advertises the position and is flooded with applications because of the “livable” wage. He gets to choose the best, most experienced workers and the inexperienced, or worse, the not so great workers are left unemployed.
I disagree with you about teacher tenure and collective bargaining rights. It is nearly impossible to fire a tenured teacher for poor job performance. During my working career, I was evaluated annually and had to prepare a list of performance goals. Depending how/and if I reached those goals it would determine how much of a raise I would receive. Also, I was responsible for the performance of my employees and if they didn’t perform then I took the hit. It should be no different for a teacher, if the students don’t learn, the teacher has to take the blame. Note, I said STUDENTS, not just a couple of struggling students. I’m sure that, like me, you had good teachers and bad teachers. It is stupid to retain bad teachers.
One other big issue in public school today is discipline. In this area, the teachers have their hands tied. For fear of being sued, the school administration allows the most abhorrent behavior directed at someone (the teacher) who should be shown respect; instead, they are cursed, disrespected and in some cases assaulted.
I’m a big believer in personal accountability. It is easy to blame others or circumstances for your own failures. Many people have ascended to lofty positions coming from some dire living conditions. As evidence to my claim, all you have to do is research the upbringing of Sonia Maria Sotomayo. Both her and her physician/professor brother Juan overcame many obstacles and are an American success story.
The entire academic community needs to evolve in order to address these problems in a more comprehensive manner. Doing the same thing over and over the same way and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Reasons young people give for dropping out:
Didn’t like school in general or the school they were attending
Were failing, getting poor grades, or couldn’t keep up with school work
Didn’t get along with teachers and/or students
Had disciplinary problems, were suspended, or expelled
Didn’t feel safe in school
Got a job, had a family to support, or had trouble managing both school and work
Got married, got pregnant, or became a parent
Had a drug or alcohol problem
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 14:42
Platitude talking points have no place in reality.
fancypants July 4th, 2014 at 23:10
I fixed it for you BOB Your welcome
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:30
What a simplistic utopian view; were it not for reality that would not be so ignorantly quaint. I guess if you discount human nature, plutocrats, thieves, greed, con men, Republicans, crooks, Wall Street, racists…
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 07:52
Equal at the starting line? Like Bush 43 and Romney were equal to Obama at the starting line?
R.J. Carter July 5th, 2014 at 13:26
Millionaires with Ivy League educations?
If everyone were created equal, we’d all be born Kennedys.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 13:36
At least you realize that make the ” Conservative think we should be equal at the starting line” a pipe dream. Unless of course you mean conservatives believe in wealth redistribution.
R.J. Carter July 5th, 2014 at 15:33
I think the better way of phrasing it is that “Conservatives thing we should have equal opportunity at the starting line.” Because that whole “equal at the finish line” — that’s totally a fairy tale.
I totally believe in wealth distribution. I engage in it every time I spend money.
AnthonyLook July 6th, 2014 at 23:03
Talk facts to me; let me know when this fantasy starting line Republican equality becomes a reality. When public schools through out America are equally funded to provide equal opportunity. When higher education is offered equally to those that aren’t rich, or are given preference because their parents are alumni or donate. When job discrimination and job ceilings are non existent. When employers pay living wages. When higher education tuition doesn’t enslave you the rest of your life. When a catastrophic illness doesn’t destroy your family and home. Until then fairy tales from the right, are just wrong.
R.J. Carter July 7th, 2014 at 09:07
Public schools equally funded? So rather than having schools supported by local taxes, you’d like to see a general fund created and everyone gets doled out from that? And do you think that would improve or diminish public schools overall?
Higher education isn’t a guarantee. It’s something one has to work for — and should have to work for.
Job discrimination we can agree on — it needs to go, both in terms of race, religion, orientation, and philosophy. Job ceilings will always exist, but can always be broken by individuals who want to break them badly enough.
Living wages? Minimum wage means that’s all they have to pay you. Check out Walmart in North Dakota, where they’ve raised their pay because they have to compete with other employers if they want to attract anyone to work in their stores. Competition works.
AnthonyLook July 7th, 2014 at 21:13
You don’t get to decide what is a guarantee; if the American voters decide Higher Education or health care is a right; we will carve out the piece of the pie as readily as any money grubbing greedy plutocrat. We decide what’s important, not some self serving capitalistic ideology mantra. Ask any African American male about job discrimination. Go to any restaurant in America and tell me who’s cooking— are they blond teenagers; yet what race are most of the hosts? What about that glass ceiling and all those single mothers, you want to question them—- broken by individuals who want to break it badly enough—- what a bunch hooey. Insofar as living wage; in California we are going to pass a law that penalizes corporations and fines them for every employee they have that has to depend on food stamps and MediCal for healthcare. We will make that law go nationwide in time.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 13:39
I don’t agree that Liberals think—- “Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line”. We believe in opportunity.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 14:34
Sorry, that was a misplaced response to BW’s graphic. I didn’t mean to insinuate you believed it. My apologies.
Chinese Democracy July 5th, 2014 at 19:51
In the U.S. the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the late 1960s:
this analysis from the Pew Research Center shows that “the U.S. has one of the most unequal income distributions in the developed world http://goo.gl/M8cWiL
mmaynard119 July 9th, 2014 at 10:36
The American debate over taxes is ferocious and highly partisan. Some, mostly Republicans, reflexively oppose all taxes. Others, mostly Democrats, decry the lack of progressivity and fairness in the tax system and favor higher tax rates for the wealthy.
This debate isn’t new. The same arguments have been repeated, with the same passion, since our income tax system was created—first during the Civil War and then—after its initial rejection by the Supreme Court—following the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. A wonderful book by Steven Weisman, The Great Tax Wars, brings this history to life.
But as Weisman makes clear, one thing has changed in a spectacular manner, and that is the American public’s—and American politicians’—willingness to defend high marginal income-tax rates as an essential and proper way to pay for the cost of government. Until a generation ago, many Americans and their representatives argued vehemently that the wealthy ought to pay more in taxes, but that position has drastically declined in popularity.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.html
R.J. Carter July 4th, 2014 at 19:42
Inequality is not getting worse. In fact, the Gini index has remained relatively flat since 1990. It’s only taken a mild uptick, in 2010.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 21:15
Inequality does not equate to lack of opportunity. Most times it equates to hard work and ability, plus making good choices.
Carla Akins July 4th, 2014 at 22:18
But it does mean a lack of equal opportunity.
Bob Waas July 4th, 2014 at 22:33
It amounts to applying yourself. You often hear about two individuals growing up in the same environment. One studies hard, gets a good education and becomes a professional and the other one drops out of school and barely gets by. They both had the same opportunity, one applied himself, the other didn’t.
Should the one who worked hard now have to share what he earned with the one who didn’t put in as much effort?
Dwendt44 July 4th, 2014 at 23:45
Sounds like a plan. Except when that company movers it’s factory to a dirt poor country that can put $1 a hour worker at the work bench for 12 hours a day, six days a week and not worry about pollution, working conditions, or benefits of any kind. then the educated worker loses his house, goes on food stamps to feed his kids and starts collecting unemployment. He’s in the same boat now as the drop out, if not worse off. He had few survival skills that the drop out has already learned; and the several other factories, offices etc.. that he might have a chance to work at are also moving to a sweatshop overseas.
To make matters worse, he turns on squawk radio or FakeNews and hears that he’s a ‘taker’ and a ‘deadbeat’ and a ‘useless eater’.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:56
What has this to do with personal responsibility for preparing yourself for the workplace? When I couldn’t find a job I started my own business just to support my family.
Why are the companies moving offshore? They can make a bigger profit by operating in a more business friendly environment that doesn’t weigh them down with endless regulations and taxes.
Also, there are plenty of jobs for unskilled labor in this country as proven by the politicians touting the need for illegal immigrants. Rather than give able bodied people free money to sit at home, have them take those jobs currently being filled by illegal immigrants and let them work their way out of poverty.
There are many people in need who cannot help themselves, but there are an equal or greater amount of people who scam the system. We need to weed out the scammers. Each month my 100 member church has a food pantry day where we give away food that we collected all month. We have been blessed to be able to provide groceries for 85 families each time.
Dwendt44 July 5th, 2014 at 12:14
To bad your opinion is baseless. The majority of the poor would take a job in a quick second if they could get one. But greedy corporations move their factories overseas because of greed, no other reason. The poor are left, usually in cities that the jobs left. A good paying job doesn’t just provide for one person or family to survive, the ripple effect provides others jobs as well. take the good job away and dozens of others lose their livelihood as well. Some poor black mother in Boston can’t and shouldn’t have to move to Texas to take a minimum wage job just so YOU feel better about her.
And BTW, those ‘families’ that your church provides food for, are they JUST members of your church like some church pantries around me? Does the person giving out the food ask? Is the food just for christians?
Some churches in my area give their food to the local city run pantry that benefits all who need it, not just church members.
Bunya July 5th, 2014 at 00:00
Well then, if that’s the case, why is it that dropouts like Rush Limbaugh make millions, while someone who studied hard and earned a college degree is struggling to find meaningful employment?
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 08:03
Hi Bunya, guess I should have read through all the comments before posting mine. Well, great minds, eh?
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 10:34
Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison all dropped out of college and became billionaires. People drop out of college for different reasons.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:47
You’re making it sound like everyone has the same abilities and drive, which has nothing to do with the environment they grew up in. A college degree isn’t a get out of jail free card. If you don’t go after what you want, it is not going to come to you.
I had a young man who while in college I hired part-time as an accounting clerk. When he finished his with his BA degree the only full-time position I had open was in the shipping department. He took the job and studied in the evening to get his MA. He then took a job as an entry level salesman in the computer sales depot. He continued to work his way up and eventually became a vice-president with the company, which was HP.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:37
Growing up in the same environment with different taxes bases supporting your education systems; and no they both do not have the same opportunity only miles apart in Inglewood and Beverly Hill public schools. The son of family that donates to a University that doesn’t apply himself does not get into the University without affirmative action to a less affluent applicant that did apply himself. The one that got in the University because of sports replaced the won that put in effort anyways. You’re views are self serving and not reality.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:39
My example said two individuals growing up in the same education system. One applies himself and makes it, the other believes all the lies about how he is a victim of an unjust society and spends the rest of his life at the complaint counter demanding his free stuff.
I believe you’re smart enough to understand and acknowledge that there are many examples like the one I posted.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 13:19
Well isn’t that straw man cozy of you, since that has nothing to do with reality. I think that you are smart enough to understand and acknowledge that your example is statistically self serving since its not the norm. No one cares about your lame statistically worthless fairy tales. We are actually parents with children in an education systems through out the country that are inherently not equal and don’t offer the same opportunity; couple that with economic realities and your words are amount to no more that what they are, mere BS.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:34
And your solution to the problem is?
AnthonyLook July 6th, 2014 at 22:21
To begin with it’s that I stop pseudo intellectual windbags that like to read their own comments thinking they sound all reasonable with their charlatan justification and lies and self serving fantasies. Why don’t you write some reality, instead of your utopian fiction that fits in your cozy box.l
Chinese Democracy July 5th, 2014 at 13:39
Im getting tired of your racist b/s
Non white Americans are lazy because they are like animals that would rather take free peanuts from their Gov benefactor than forage for them . All they have to do for the peanuts is vote Democratic.
You type that racist bull chit over and over
its STILL not true and wasnt the first time you typed it
The only reason I think you continue on is because bashing and demeaning non whites gives you a stiffy
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:28
What racist remark did I post? What did I post that was not true?
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 08:00
Well, let’s see. My son and daughter-in-law struggle each month to pay their student loans in addition to all their other responsibilities. They worked their butts off and graduated with the equivalent of a home mortgage on their backs. On the other hand, you have drop-outs like Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck making millions. So, who applied themselves and who didn’t?
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:27
I couldn’t begin to respond to your post since I know nothing about your children.
I have 3 boys and 2 girls.
My two girls have always been financially responsible and have lived within their means; including paying of college student loans.
My boys didn’t buy health insurance when it was only $75.00 a month because they chose to spend their money on other things.
The two older boys continued to make poor financial decisions and although they work their butts off, they struggle to pay their monthly bills.
The youngest son learned from his siblings and went the way of his sisters and is financialiy secure.
Only one of my sons graduated from college, but the two who didn’t are making more money than the college grad, so there is no magic formula where a degree is a guarantee. It requires the desire to get ahead as well, which is what Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck had; as well as Jobs, Gates, Dell and a slew of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_dropout_billionaires
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 08:53
I have two sons with identical IT degrees from a good college. One has a decent job that he absolutely loves, but the pay is sub-par, which is tough because he has 4 kids. The youngest, works in a body shop (painting) which is what he did before getting his degree because the few jobs he could find in our region that his degree supported paid less than my customer service job.
My youngest is a new father and nothing has driven him harder to succeed. Both of my boys understand being a responsible individual and work hard at their jobs as well as being a productive member of society and their community. This is not the same world we grew up in, applying yourself is no guarantee of anything except exhaustion. The old adage of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, is no longer a valid piece of advice.
I don’t care how well it may have worked in the past, just because “in my day” worked for you, does not mean it works today. That said, I believe poverty is the overriding reason for trouble in this country and the one and only way out is education. But it’s unrealistic to think its a cure-all.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 10:25
I have a computer science degree from a good college. I choose to live in a rural area where programming jobs are scarce and the pay is far lower than in urban areas. After working 11 years for other people, I started my own business selling productivity tools for other software developers. I make less per year, on average, than I did before, but I love my work and the creative freedom that self-employment provides.
Both of my kids got degrees in fields for which very few jobs exist in this area. They both decided to live close to different cities where the jobs are more plentiful and the salaries are higher.
My son has a brand new Camaro which he drives in heavy traffic. I have a beat up old Subaru which I drive on beautiful country roads. We are each exploiting different types of opportunities.
I can relate to your son wanting to live in a particular region where the jobs are less plentiful. I made the same choice. Some people choose to relocate. From what I have read, at the national level, there is a strong demand for IT workers.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, computer programmers have an average salary of $74K, and the number of jobs is expected to increase by 8% in the next decade. Network and System Administrators earn $73K with 12% expected growth in the next decade.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 10:34
I must have misspoke, my apologies. We live in Kansas City, not a rural area.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 11:16
“We live in Kansas City, not a rural area.”
It was I who misspoke. I wrongly assumed that if IT jobs were scarce in your area, then you must be rural.
In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, my company sold a software tool used by database developers. We probably received more orders from CA, TX, NY, and WA than all other states combined. IT jobs are definitely more plentiful in some areas than in others.
I have a good friend who is dissatisfied with his current IT job, so I regularly look at IT job listings and occasionally send him links. The thing is that there are plenty of job listings, but very few in our region, and my friend is unwilling to move out of the area.
One of the best IT job websites is careers dot joelonsoftware dot com. They currently have 2216 job listings, 52 of which were posted in the past 24 hours. For an IT person who is willing to relocate, the opportunities are out there.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:01
Wow, thank you. The oldest won’t ever leave (his in-laws are here) but the youngest is just starting a family, the adorable baby I use on occasion is his first born. They’d love to get away and build a life.I will pass along the info, and just for good measure (because I’m a gma and can’t resist)
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 13:55
Okay, now I’m jealous. No grandkids here. Just two cats. (but we love ’em like grandkids!)
Another good resource is dice dot com. I searched for web developer jobs in Kansas City, KS and got 80 hits. There were 60 hits on system administrator, 19 on database administrator, 77 on software developer, and 30 on network administrator.
And don’t rule out craigslist. I often see technical job postings from reputable companies in my area.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 16:12
Hang in there. Grandbabies are everything you’ve been told. It’s to make up for growing old! Nolan here is the 5th. each and every one of them are amazing.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 21:05
This is our surrogate grandchild, Brody, when he was just a wee lad.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2014 at 21:06
First time photo upload. Let’s try that again.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:06
Here’s the boy. Couldn’t add him below.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:07
or not at all. dang.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 11:35
Poverty perpetuates itself. In the black community 72% of births are to unwed mothers, many of them teenagers, and many of them high school dropouts. This is an area that should get the most attention. Instead of rewarding them with social programs, we need to do more like Bill Clinton promoted and show them a path off welfare and into the workplace.
There is a big difference between a helping hand and a hand-out.
A helping hand is designed to get you back on your feet. A hand-out has no expiration date, thereby providing a disincentive for becoming self reliant.
As for your boys, my brother and I are good examples to use as a comparison.
I chose to work hard at local companies with limited advancement, while my brother went where the opportunities were and he moved all around the country; leaving the comforts and family and friends.
While I had a successful career, my priority was always about being home to be a father to my 5 children. To keep them in a good school district, I chose to commute 20 miles rather than locate closer to my work.
My brother was a good father to his 2 children, but he left all the heavy lifting to his wife as his jobs had him traveling all over the world.
I helped my brother get is first professional job as an accounting clerk at a company where I worked. He left the company 17 years later with the title of vice president. Again, the same opportunities were available for me to advance like he did, but I had different priorities; and now have no regrets.
Here is a little bio on my brother. It was an older one, but you can google his name to see what he is currently doing.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/William+R.+Waas+Named+President+%26+COO+–+Empowered+Solutions…-a053085531
I can probably relate better with your sons than my younger brother as they seem to have chosen to put family first, rather than relocate.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 13:14
Yes, poverty is the root of all evil and education is the way out. Unfortunately, the world is not the same place it was when you and I were starting out. Having a college education, pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is no longer an effective means of digging yourself out of poverty,
mea_mark July 5th, 2014 at 13:49
We need to start by raising the minimum wage.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 16:13
Let the free market determine the wages for each job, not the government. Obewon is a advocate for raising the minimum wage, but when I challenge him to hire someone at minimum wage with no experience in his business he goes strangely quiet. He invokes the NIMBY response by his silence.
Here is an economists take on the subject.
“The most direct impact minimum wage implementation has on the economy is unemployment among young workers and unskilled workers. The two chief views for and against minimum wage implementation are supply-side economists argue that raising minimum wage levels increase unemployment, and demand side economists believe raising minimum wage lowers the poverty level and decreases underemployment levels. Economist Craig Garthwaite argues the former, citing fellow economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker, “a higher minimum [wage] will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills.”
The BLS report for June shows 6.1% unemployment rate, a U6 rate of 12.1%, but the group most affected by raising the minimum wages are already suffering from having to compete with a surplus of employees who have work experience who are taking jobs that would normally be filled by the young or unskilled workers.
June 2014 Unemployment rate for:
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)………………………………. 21%
Black or African American…………………………………………10.7%
Obewon July 5th, 2014 at 20:10
Wass? Sea-Tac minimum wage” is $15/hr because one person raising a child no longer needs government subsidies of their employers wages. Their workers newly Increased disposable income generates far greater ROI & sales than the meager wage cost to businesses. Wages are a mere 7% of U.S. record $16 T GDP which is also obviously why a $35K U.S. wage generates $400K to $600K in average GDP revenue.
I try to ignore Wass’ 0% credibility, however: “but when I challenge him to hire someone at minimum wage with no experience in his business he goes strangely quiet”-Wass’ Alzheimer’s prevents his remembering anything honest or accurate, especially regarding me or my posts.
While In college during 1980 I self-founded my first IT firm with $100 per month spent on yellow page advertising. Doubling ad covered areas annually, also doubled revenue 9 years out of 11 years before I sold in 1990.. I’ve always paid all workers including inexperienced $12 up to $24/Hr from 1980 to 1990 when 1980-81 minimum wage was $3.10 to $3.35/hr. My competitors paid their best workers $7-$8/hr. Even back then in 1980 I always paid new workers $12/hr to $15/hr, or double my competition. I’ve rarely had to retrain for any position as I’ve never experienced average annual worker turnover of 33%. Since the 1990’s no worker hired by my 2nd IT firm based in NYC has ever been paid less than $75/Hr and up to $125/Hr.
By well paying others we reward ourselves with their successes, happiness and quality of life. In mentoring and freely teaching others without experience, we give rise to their new endeavors. Several of my former students have maintained their IT firms for 10+ years now as well:)
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 09:15
Please excuse me for not believing you, but your statistical data has a history of being less than accurate.
Obewon July 6th, 2014 at 12:59
In other words Wass admits he’s ‘inaccurate’ and full of crap as usual, unable to dispute or debunk a single thing I’ve “re-posted” per his own above request proving his Alzheimer’s dementia leaves him unable to accurately remember a single thing, ever.
The funniest thing about Wass’ above requests that were satisfied are he’s too dim to remember previous LL articles & posts proving:
1. A mere 7% of $16 T U.S. GDP = all U.S. wages.
2. Sea-Tac Minimum Wages are $15/Hr & All of Seattle Soon.
3. Many U.S. corps average $400,000 to $600,000 income from each Worker. Only the uninformed are worried about $15/Hr minimum wages today, when all reputable urban firms profited very well by paying new workers at least $15/hr+ since the 1980’s!
‘Consumers Increased disposable income is bad for business’-Wass remains clueless, especially on Sea-Tac’s thriving business profits via current $15 Minimum wages, now expanded beyond the Sea-Tac Airport economic hub throughout all of Seattle soon: How A Millionaire, A Socialist, And Some Taco Bell Workers Brought A $15/Hr Minimum Living Wage To Seattle. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/05/3445102/seattle-minimum-wage-deal-socialist-millionaire-workers/
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 19:45
Oh I remember alright. Even when you are presented with multiple sources of evidence you have refused to acknowledge that you were wrong; so there is no point to give credence to anything you write; especially your statistical stats.
You comments are nothing but baseless attacks and your demeanor lacks civility.
Obewon July 6th, 2014 at 20:44
Thanks again as always for continually proving you remain unable to accurately debunk anything posted above, or anywhere here on LL. How’s your ODS “Where’s the birth certificate” birther crusade going? Lol. Canadian Ted Cruz until 2016~
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 17:23
What is your suggestion for getting out of poverty if you think that developing skills and working hard won’t work.
America offers opportunities like no other country in the world, which is probably why so many are entering illegally. I’ve seen first hand what success looks like by someone arriving in our country totally broke when I visit the local nail place. The folks are from Vietnam and they created their own jobs and are doing very well without any government help. If you look at the Asian unemployment rate you will see that it is 5.1%. We also saw the resiliency of the Vietnam refugees after Katrina. Their community was the first to get rebuilt.
Carla Akins July 5th, 2014 at 17:44
I have no issue with working hard, but hard work alone doesn’t fix the issue any more.There are simply not enough manufacturing type jobs to cover the large amount of people. As I mentioned previously, education is the key. And I’m not even speaking of college. I’m talking elementary and high school.
Are you aware that prisons gauge how many new prisons they’ll build based on the number of 3rd graders that can read at a 3rd grade level. Children, very young children should be receiving at the very least an adequate education. Not testing bullshit, but taught reading, math and critical thinking skills. Teachers able to connect to these students should be glorified, not screamed at by the likes of Chris Christie and should be paid accordingly and have job security. THis is the path out of poverty.
Bob Waas July 5th, 2014 at 21:52
Teacher job security is some of the problems facing public education today. Schools are not able to get rid of poor teachers and the students suffer.
I have long advocated teaching students according to their interests. Not all students are destined for college, but they all receive the same basic education in HS and those who only get a HS education are not trained for many of the jobs available today. It would be great if they would gear a students lessons towards a field of their interest, such as; wood working, cooking, electrical, etc. To make matters worse, every time the government raises the minimum wage it shuts out more of those looking for their first jobs. When companies have to pay a higher wage they get to choose from a larger, more experienced work force.
When you say, “not testing” are you referring to Common Core?
So, what is your solution to fix the problem?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 00:31
Even with tenure teachers ca be fired for cause. Your claim of getting rid of bad teachers is a sound bite and not accurate. All students do not get the same education, students learn sat different rate and through different means.Teaching to a skill is not helpful, students need a well-rounded education, even in subjects they don’t like. Failure to teach math and history create life-long problems. I have no idea what your reference is to minimum wage. But as far as testing goes, it does not reflect a students true abilities, nor does it have anything to do with a teachers skill to reach a student.
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 09:09
Teaching a skill is definitely worth it. Note, I said beginning in HS, so they already had 8 years of a well rounded education. HS should consist of English, math and a trade.
There are no guarantees that teaching history is going to make them ready for the job market. I saw interviews with college students and some had no idea what was happening in the world today. Some even thought Cheney was still the VP.
My comment about minimum wage was to illustrate that they can’t compete for even entry level jobs, which is why the unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds is over 20%.
You keep repeating the problem as you see it, but what do you suggest as a solution?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 09:29
If you were arguing that history (or pick a core subject) in college I would agree. High School is a time to provide a well-rounded education in all core subjects. Certainly that does not mean that HS elective courses shouldn’t include hands on skills (let’s say woodshop) but these are and should be electives and not the primary goal.
Your Cheney example is exactly why core classes need to be taught. I have several friends that teach k-12 and my favorite Aunt is a recently retired English teacher. For those post students that can’r complete a written job application, it’s a very big deal. A student can learn a hands on skill, find a good job and make a decent living – but when it comes to applying for and agreeing to the terms of a mortgage, they very often get screwed because they lack a well-rounded education.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I know what it’s not. It’s not vilifying teachers because they deserve bargaining rights, it’s not doing away with tenure and for all that is holy – it is not basing the teachers skill on her students ability to complete a standardized test.
Bob Waas July 6th, 2014 at 19:04
I didn’t suggest not teaching math and English in HS. What I suggested is adding vocational training in a students field of interest and let that be the dominate part of study. My nephew hated HS because he found it boring. He dropped out and went to a trade school where his field of interest was being taught; along with English and math. He graduated with above average grades and looked forward to attending each day.
The Cheney example actually counters your claim that they learn basic civics in HS since they were college students being interviewed.
My previous example of the downside to raising the minimum wage; which a Nobel laureate concurs, is that it hurts the inexperienced worker. You said they can get hands-on experience, but they can’t do that if they can’t get hired. Consider, an employer is forced to pay $15.00 an hour as a beginning wage; he advertises the position and is flooded with applications because of the “livable” wage. He gets to choose the best, most experienced workers and the inexperienced, or worse, the not so great workers are left unemployed.
I disagree with you about teacher tenure and collective bargaining rights. It is nearly impossible to fire a tenured teacher for poor job performance. During my working career, I was evaluated annually and had to prepare a list of performance goals. Depending how/and if I reached those goals it would determine how much of a raise I would receive. Also, I was responsible for the performance of my employees and if they didn’t perform then I took the hit. It should be no different for a teacher, if the students don’t learn, the teacher has to take the blame. Note, I said STUDENTS, not just a couple of struggling students. I’m sure that, like me, you had good teachers and bad teachers. It is stupid to retain bad teachers.
One other big issue in public school today is discipline. In this area, the teachers have their hands tied. For fear of being sued, the school administration allows the most abhorrent behavior directed at someone (the teacher) who should be shown respect; instead, they are cursed, disrespected and in some cases assaulted.
I’m a big believer in personal accountability. It is easy to blame others or circumstances for your own failures. Many people have ascended to lofty positions coming from some dire living conditions. As evidence to my claim, all you have to do is research the upbringing of Sonia Maria Sotomayo. Both her and her physician/professor brother Juan overcame many obstacles and are an American success story.
The entire academic community needs to evolve in order to address these problems in a more comprehensive manner. Doing the same thing over and over the same way and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Reasons young people give for dropping out:
Didn’t like school in general or the school they were attending
Were failing, getting poor grades, or couldn’t keep up with school work
Didn’t get along with teachers and/or students
Had disciplinary problems, were suspended, or expelled
Didn’t feel safe in school
Got a job, had a family to support, or had trouble managing both school and work
Got married, got pregnant, or became a parent
Had a drug or alcohol problem
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 14:42
Platitude talking points have no place in reality.
fancypants July 4th, 2014 at 23:10
I fixed it for you BOB Your welcome
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 01:30
What a simplistic utopian view; were it not for reality that would not be so ignorantly quaint. I guess if you discount human nature, plutocrats, thieves, greed, con men, Republicans, crooks, Wall Street, racists…
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 07:52
Equal at the starting line? Like Bush 43 and Romney were equal to Obama at the starting line?
R.J. Carter July 5th, 2014 at 13:26
Millionaires with Ivy League educations?
If everyone were created equal, we’d all be born Kennedys.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 13:36
At least you realize that makes the ” Conservative think we should be equal at the starting line” a pipe dream. Unless of course you mean conservatives believe in wealth redistribution.
R.J. Carter July 5th, 2014 at 15:33
I think the better way of phrasing it is that “Conservatives thing we should have equal opportunity at the starting line.” Because that whole “equal at the finish line” — that’s totally a fairy tale.
I totally believe in wealth distribution. I engage in it every time I spend money.
AnthonyLook July 6th, 2014 at 23:03
Talk facts to me; let me know when this fantasy starting line Republican equality becomes a reality. When public schools through out America are equally funded to provide equal opportunity. When higher education is offered equally to those that aren’t rich, or are given preference because their parents are alumni or donate. When job discrimination and job ceilings are non existent. When employers pay living wages. When higher education tuition doesn’t enslave you the rest of your life. When a catastrophic illness doesn’t destroy your family and home. Until then fairy tales from the right, are just wrong.
R.J. Carter July 7th, 2014 at 09:07
Public schools equally funded? So rather than having schools supported by local taxes, you’d like to see a general fund created and everyone gets doled out from that? And do you think that would improve or diminish public schools overall?
Higher education isn’t a guarantee. It’s something one has to work for — and should have to work for.
Job discrimination we can agree on — it needs to go, both in terms of race, religion, orientation, and philosophy. Job ceilings will always exist, but can always be broken by individuals who want to break them badly enough.
Living wages? Minimum wage means that’s all they have to pay you. Check out Walmart in North Dakota, where they’ve raised their pay because they have to compete with other employers if they want to attract anyone to work in their stores. Competition works.
AnthonyLook July 7th, 2014 at 21:13
You don’t get to decide what is a guarantee; if the American voters decide Higher Education or health care is a right; we will carve out the piece of the pie as readily as any money grubbing greedy plutocrat. We decide what’s important, not some self serving capitalistic ideology mantra. Ask any African American male about job discrimination. Go to any restaurant in America and tell me who’s cooking— are they blond teenagers; yet what race are most of the hosts? What about that glass ceiling and all those single mothers, you want to question them—- broken by individuals who want to break it badly enough—- what a bunch hooey. Insofar as living wage; in California we are going to pass a law that penalizes corporations and fines them for every employee they have that has to depend on food stamps and MediCal for healthcare. We will make that law go nationwide in time.
AnthonyLook July 5th, 2014 at 13:39
I don’t agree that Liberals think—- “Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line”. We believe in opportunity.
Shades July 5th, 2014 at 14:34
Sorry, that was a misplaced response to BW’s graphic. I didn’t mean to insinuate you believed it. My apologies.
Chinese Democracy July 5th, 2014 at 19:51
In the U.S. the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the late 1960s:
this analysis from the Pew Research Center shows that “the U.S. has one of the most unequal income distributions in the developed world http://goo.gl/M8cWiL
mmaynard119 July 9th, 2014 at 10:36
The American debate over taxes is ferocious and highly partisan. Some, mostly Republicans, reflexively oppose all taxes. Others, mostly Democrats, decry the lack of progressivity and fairness in the tax system and favor higher tax rates for the wealthy.
This debate isn’t new. The same arguments have been repeated, with the same passion, since our income tax system was created—first during the Civil War and then—after its initial rejection by the Supreme Court—following the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. A wonderful book by Steven Weisman, The Great Tax Wars, brings this history to life.
But as Weisman makes clear, one thing has changed in a spectacular manner, and that is the American public’s—and American politicians’—willingness to defend high marginal income-tax rates as an essential and proper way to pay for the cost of government. Until a generation ago, many Americans and their representatives argued vehemently that the wealthy ought to pay more in taxes, but that position has drastically declined in popularity.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.html
fancypants July 4th, 2014 at 22:59
” AT WILL EMPLOYEE ” better look for this on your application / contract before you ask for anything else.
fancypants July 4th, 2014 at 22:59
” AT WILL EMPLOYEE ” better look for this on your application / contract before you ask for anything else.