Prager U: The Way out of Poverty

[zoogs]

Not single family, but one person working. I'm saying that income only partially defines circumstance. Postdocs are poor because postdocs don't pay much.

 

But it's a night-and-day difference between that and someone who say has no degrees working the best job they can to make ends meet. When that family provides a poor early childhood environment for a kid to become a top learner in school, I'd call it circumstance a lot more than I would "well, this kid has problems" or "well, it's the parenting." Those are the kind of problems I think direct financial assistance can really help with. It's really not easy to foster the right kind of environment at home when you're under serious, long-term financial pressure.

[NM11046]

 

Yeah, kind of the reason I think there's bigger fish to fry. To be fair to Bernie, I don't know his proposal in this area especially well. On the surface it seems like the sort of thing that costs a lot and benefits mostly people who are doing alright already.

 

With education and poverty specifically, I think we want to attack the problem as upstream as possible. Having the grades to get into your state's flagship university is something the impoverished comparatively don't have access to. I recall hearing about a short-lived study in (Canada?...I think) that illustrated how UBI addresses this, for example by reducing the pressure for children in these families to shoulder the financial burden when they should be focusing more on their schoolwork. Education is part of the reason why poverty is a trap that transcends generations.

Unless you are talking about really extreme poverty, I think this is a cop out excuse.

 

Being in a C1 size school, we have the privilege of knowing most kids in our own children's class. It is a wide range from very well off to very poor. Those very poor kids are in school every day sitting in class right along with other kids. The school gives them a computer to go home with. They aren't skipping school to go to a job. Do some have jobs after school? Sure....and other kids have maybe sports after school that's taking up study time.

 

Just one (of many) examples of this is a neighbor girl of ours. Absolutely a wonderful girl who grew up in a single family home with her dad. He had a job that didn't pay well at all. She graduated in the top three of her class and went to Nursing at UNL/UNMC for free.

 

Now, are there issues that need to be addressed with many kids? Sure. But, when we start blaming coming from a poor family on why a kid can't sit in class and learn the same stuff a rich kid does. If they don't come to school ready to do that, one hell of a lot of time that's a problem with parenting. And...you see bad parenting in all economic classes.

 

I think the unsaid issue here is that you can't assume those living in less than optimal circumstances have the resources, more so in a mentorship and motivational sense (and really you can't with the rich kid either). The intangibles. The challenge is that without a teacher or another adult taking an interest and helping a kid who has the ability may not know how to apply themselves, or understand the importance of doing so. Yes you can give them a computer, but without seeing how committed mom is to double checking her paperwork before turning it into her boss or how dad stays up late to insure that he is prepared for a presentation etc they miss out.

 

Net net for me - grades don't reflect ability or what someone is worth. Your ability to attend college shouldn't be totally aligned to your high school performance. I too am not familiar with Bernie's plan intricacies, but Id like to see free education and if someone fails to keep up a certain grade average or graduate they have to pay in proportion to their success. Ace everything? Thanks for coming - head out into the world. Flunk out? Here's your bill.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Yeah, kind of the reason I think there's bigger fish to fry. To be fair to Bernie, I don't know his proposal in this area especially well. On the surface it seems like the sort of thing that costs a lot and benefits mostly people who are doing alright already.

 

With education and poverty specifically, I think we want to attack the problem as upstream as possible. Having the grades to get into your state's flagship university is something the impoverished comparatively don't have access to. I recall hearing about a short-lived study in (Canada?...I think) that illustrated how UBI addresses this, for example by reducing the pressure for children in these families to shoulder the financial burden when they should be focusing more on their schoolwork. Education is part of the reason why poverty is a trap that transcends generations.

Unless you are talking about really extreme poverty, I think this is a cop out excuse.

 

Being in a C1 size school, we have the privilege of knowing most kids in our own children's class. It is a wide range from very well off to very poor. Those very poor kids are in school every day sitting in class right along with other kids. The school gives them a computer to go home with. They aren't skipping school to go to a job. Do some have jobs after school? Sure....and other kids have maybe sports after school that's taking up study time.

 

Just one (of many) examples of this is a neighbor girl of ours. Absolutely a wonderful girl who grew up in a single family home with her dad. He had a job that didn't pay well at all. She graduated in the top three of her class and went to Nursing at UNL/UNMC for free.

 

Now, are there issues that need to be addressed with many kids? Sure. But, when we start blaming coming from a poor family on why a kid can't sit in class and learn the same stuff a rich kid does. If they don't come to school ready to do that, one hell of a lot of time that's a problem with parenting. And...you see bad parenting in all economic classes.

 

I think the unsaid issue here is that you can't assume those living in less than optimal circumstances have the resources, more so in a mentorship and motivational sense (and really you can't with the rich kid either). The intangibles. The challenge is that without a teacher or another adult taking an interest and helping a kid who has the ability may not know how to apply themselves, or understand the importance of doing so. Yes you can give them a computer, but without seeing how committed mom is to double checking her paperwork before turning it into her boss or how dad stays up late to insure that he is prepared for a presentation etc they miss out.

 

Net net for me - grades don't reflect ability or what someone is worth. Your ability to attend college shouldn't be totally aligned to your high school performance. I too am not familiar with Bernie's plan intricacies, but Id like to see free education and if someone fails to keep up a certain grade average or graduate they have to pay in proportion to their success. Ace everything? Thanks for coming - head out into the world. Flunk out? Here's your bill.

 

I think you are saying somewhat what I'm trying to say. There are lots of situations out here where even putting more money into the family (not that that's a bad thing) wouldn't change the situation the kids are growing up in as far as mentors/good examples.

 

This is somewhat what TO was trying to accomplish with his Teammates mentor program. I am familiar enough with the program to know it has had good affect on many kids. We can pump money into lots of ideas. But, unless it gets good mentors working with these kids to help teach them how to be successful....my feeling is that lots of it is just totally wasted.

[Danny Bateman]

This is a pretty dense thread, but definitely interesting stuff. I may try to take a look at it this weekend - I'm busy trying to cram for two tests at the moment.

 

However, it seems to me on first blush the video from the OP and what zoogs is describing are somewhat different issues.

 

I could agree with the argument in the video. It was funny to see them shoehorn in a few tangentially related conservative talking points arbitrarily, but it's a compelling argument.

 

However, shifting government welfare programs towards a focus on removing people from poverty and trying to address massive tax cuts for the richest among us are two distinct topics. I think the latter is important, given the massive amount of wealth they've already accrued, and the fact that many of them are already able to afford the best of the best to do their taxes and avoid as much tax as possible anyway.

 

I could rather strongly support a UBI, though I definitely don't think the support is there, yet. I draw the line in sand at suggestions like drug testing welfare recipients. There's a whole spectrum of approaches to poverty the government can take and they elicit varying reactions from me.

 

One more thing on education that I noticed. BRB, you're right about needs-based scholarships making affordable for those who are poor. However, I came from a middle-class family, got myself into PT school, and I'm going to be well north of $100K in debt by the time I'm done. Your daughter is going to be a dentist, correct? I don't claim to know her money situation, but it seems completely backwards to me that we artificially create poverty for people like myself or her who don't start out behind but get put there by the crazy costs of education in our country today.

 

Like I said, just skimming and dropping some thoughts. Sorry if I rehashed something already addressed. I'll try to get back to this thread at some point, though.

[BigRedBuster]

This is a pretty dense thread, but definitely interesting stuff. I may try to take a look at it this weekend - I'm busy trying to cram for two tests at the moment.

 

However, it seems to me on first blush the video from the OP and what zoogs is describing are somewhat different issues.

 

I could agree with the argument in the video. It was funny to see them shoehorn in a few tangentially related conservative talking points arbitrarily, but it's a compelling argument.

 

However, shifting government welfare programs towards a focus on removing people from poverty and trying to address massive tax cuts for the richest among us are two distinct topics. I think the latter is important, given the massive amount of wealth they've already accrued, and the fact that many of them are already able to afford the best of the best to do their taxes and avoid as much tax as possible anyway.

 

I could rather strongly support a UBI, though I definitely don't think the support is there, yet. I draw the line in sand at suggestions like drug testing welfare recipients. There's a whole spectrum of approaches to poverty the government can take and they elicit varying reactions from me.

 

One more thing on education that I noticed. BRB, you're right about needs-based scholarships making affordable for those who are poor. However, I came from a middle-class family, got myself into PT school, and I'm going to be well north of $100K in debt by the time I'm done. Your daughter is going to be a dentist, correct? I don't claim to know her money situation, but it seems completely backwards to me that we artificially create poverty for people like myself or her who don't start out behind but get put there by the crazy costs of education in our country today.

 

Like I said, just skimming and dropping some thoughts. Sorry if I rehashed something already addressed. I'll try to get back to this thread at some point, though.

When she graduates from dental school, she will have 250,000 - 300,000 debt. And...that's after getting out of under grad debt free. That's insane.

 

Not to defend it at all. But, one small factor that makes it oh so slightly palatable si that when they leave dental school, they have purchased much of the equipment or tools they need for when they start a practice because they have needed them while in school.

 

 

But...to your point. I agree with your assessment of the kids who aren't so poor to get need based scholarships but not rich enough to just have mom and dad pay for it. There's a donut hole there that really gets slammed.