"Achievement Gap" (mortgage, credit, student loans)

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

Yeah, that's why Scandinavian countries are such dystopian hellholes. LOL.

Because Scandinavia is irrelevant, I'm not going to go any further into that. I mean, nice anecdote (albeit sarcastic, and offering no empirical evidence of anything), but this discussion is about America--with America's demographics and educational system. As such, why don't you actually give me an argument that continuing to take from those that work and give to those who would rather give up/be lazy/sell drugs/whatever and listen to Eminem sing "F--- school; I'm too cool to go back" is a sustainable path... especially when states like Minnesota are already facing large budget deficits, states like California/Illinois are in serious fiscal distress, and the federal government owes $14+ trillion and rapidly accumulating.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Because Scandinavia is irrelevant, I'm not going to go any further into that.

My irrelevant invocation of Scandinavia was in response to your irrelevant blanket statement about the social safety net and various mythologies of its disincentives on productivity and achievement.

[audadvnc]

I agree with southernsmoke 100% here. Many lazy, self-interested people take unfair advantage of the systems in place to help those truly in need.

But how can we distinguish the lazybones from the truly needy? Sometimes our rush to judgement falls too harshly on those who could use a hand.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

I agree with southernsmoke 100% here. Many lazy, self-interested people take unfair advantage of the systems in place to help those truly in need.

But how can we distinguish the lazybones from the truly needy? Sometimes our rush to judgement falls too harshly on those who could use a hand.

I understand that concern. It is truly vexing. And I don't mean to downplay the moral significance of that problem at all, but there are realities at play too. It is just unrealistic to continue, indefinitely, to throw more money at poorly performing schools and underachieving adults and hope that the capable-but-lazy learn the value of hard work.

This is not really a solution to that problem specifically, but it sort of addresses it. I would like to see social welfare be driven more by the private sector rather than government programs. There are myriad reasons for this--mostly founded in philosophical, religious, and market efficiency principles--but I will discuss a few practical issues. First, government isn't actually paying for these services anyway (just piling more and more debt and unfunded liabilities up, which will cause big problems). Second, nearly half of all Americans have zero federal income tax liability (don't know the specific stats on state taxes, but let's not get caught missing the forest for the trees). When half of our voting public is taking from, but not contributing to, government programs, we are dangerously close to being stuck in downward spiral where we have a ruling majority that is a net drain on our resources... voting for more "free" stuff, etc. Third, and really more to the point about distinguishing between "the needy" and "the lazy" (so to speak), is that as long as government is running the show, it is harder (politically and constitutionally) to make the distinction between who really "needs" entitlement programs and who doesn't.

Look I believe social charity is a good thing. But I think it can be done in much more efficient way, partly by simply allowing the people who are funding these programs to think them through and come up with the best solution rather than putting massive political pressure on policy-makers to just throw more money at these problems--money which we don't have.

[QuantumIguana]

If it is true that half of American citizens pay no income tax, it misleading. It doesn't imply that half of the voting public pays no income tax. Those under 18 may not be paying income tax, but are not voting. And stay at home mothers may pay no income tax, as they have no income.

[audadvnc]

...how can we distinguish the lazybones from the truly needy?

I have a stepson who's developmentally delayed, he suffered an almost fatal brain injury as a newborn. His mind is like a row of post office boxes in a small town; some slots are in constant use, yet other adjacent slots seem to have never even been opened. He's also a teenager, and can do the lazybones thing just as well as his fully functioning, yet equally lazy older siblings.

One of my challenges is to distinguish his mental limits versus his normal teenage slack-itude; to help him over the hurdles he's not ready for, yet not give in to pity when he's just looking for a free ride.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If it is true that half of American citizens pay no income tax, it misleading. It doesn't imply that half of the voting public pays no income tax. Those under 18 may not be paying income tax, but are not voting. And stay at home mothers may pay no income tax, as they have no income.

Well, a lot of it depends on your definitions, but the point is that there are a lot of Americans paying no federal income tax (and probably no state income tax as well for most of them, in states where there is an income tax).

I thought this number was in the 40s (and it most likely is now, after this drawn out recession), but in 2008, 38% of filers (to be precise in my definitions, this is not "people"... it can be a couple or an individual, depending on filing status) had zero or negative income tax liability. Generally, stay-at-home mothers will be filing jointly (unless they get terrible tax advice), so this number does not reflect a hypothetical situation where one spouse earns income, the other doesn't, and therefore 50% of the family has income tax liability. In that case, it would (most likely) be one filer, with tax liability.

Distribution of Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability by Cash Income Level, 2009

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

I have a stepson who's developmentally delayed, he suffered an almost fatal brain injury as a newborn. His mind is like a row of post office boxes in a small town; some slots are in constant use, yet other adjacent slots seem to have never even been opened. He's also a teenager, and can do the lazybones thing just as well as his fully functioning, yet equally lazy older siblings.

One of my challenges is to distinguish his mental limits versus his normal teenage slack-itude; to help him over the hurdles he's not ready for, yet not give in to pity when he's just looking for a free ride.

Yeah, that is difficult... one of those hard situations in life. Part of my point is that, as hard as it is for you to figure out when it is best for you to help him and when it is best for you to say "you gotta earn it," it is impossible as a practical matter for a government program to make that determination in any consistent or principled way. So by saying we want to make all of these things government entitlements, we throw away any hope of separating those who really just need to learn a lesson in hard work.

We have derailed somewhat, but to bring it back to education and how to fix the achievement gap--it can't be done by spending and spending (which is the most popular and politically expedient option). It is about changing the culture in the areas where the low-performing schools are. My argument is simply that continuing and expanding upon the entitlement model does not change the culture.

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

My argument is simply that continuing and expanding upon the entitlement model does not change the culture.

I remember working on a movie crew many years ago, making a Public Service Announcement for some state agency. One of the characters, a middle aged African American businessman, spoke out against the results of "three generations of welfare".

We've been dealing with the unplanned consequences of good intentions for quite awhile. And we still don't have it right.

[uptown_urbanist]

I agree that it's socioeconomic, but in the Twin Cities the socioeconomic gap also falls along racial lines. And I DO think it's true that a lot of kids out there aren't "getting" a good education (sure, they should and could be taking advantages of opportunities, but for whatever reason they're not. I do agree that there's only so much the schools and teachers can do; they certainly can't single-handedly take on the much larger underlying issues. Teachers and schools can only do so much.