Do Higher-Incomes Work Harder than Lower-Incomes?

TurtleDude said:

exactly dude

Click to expand...

So you think the parents are letting their kids suffer to have more bling?

xpiher said:

So you think the parents are letting their kids suffer to have more bling?

Click to expand...

Yeah in many cases. I have seen parents

trade their kids for crack among other things

pimp out their young daughters for drugs

make porn films using their kids

not spending on their kids is a minor sin compared to some of the stuff I have seen

TurtleDude said:

Yeah in many cases. I have seen parents

trade their kids for crack among other things

pimp out their young daughters for drugs

make porn films using their kids

not spending on their kids is a minor sin compared to some of the stuff I have seen

Click to expand...

And those people should be in jail. Welfare isn't the issue in that case.

xpiher said:

And those people should be in jail. Welfare isn't the issue in that case.

Click to expand...

the point is many of those on the dole don't spend the money they are given for their children on their children, I really don't have any problem sterilizing people like that

TurtleDude said:

the point is many of those on the dole don't spend the money they are given for their children on their children, I really don't have any problem sterilizing people like that

Click to expand...

Sterilization isn't the right fix. Attacking the causes of poverty is. Thats why after I'm out of the military (6-8years) I'm starting a non-profit.

xpiher said:

Sterilization isn't the right fix. Attacking the causes of poverty is. Thats why after I'm out of the military (6-8years) I'm starting a non-profit.

Click to expand...

one of the causes of poverty are the programs liberal politicians have created designed to keep people poor so they vote for the party of handouts

TurtleDude said:

one of the causes of poverty are the programs liberal politicians have created designed to keep people poor so they vote for the party of handouts

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. A constant thing harped on by libertarians and conservatives alike is the belief that welfare has greatly contributed to the destruction of the black family. However (IMO), if you look at the history of demographics of the black family you'll see a near steady increase in separation throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, and it spiked when the baby boomer generation came into adulthood. It seems to be more endemic in the community and more nuanced to be primarily caused by welfare IMO.

xpiher said:

I'm not so sure. A constant thing harped on by libertarians and conservatives alike is the belief that welfare has greatly contributed to the destruction of the black family. However (IMO), if you look at the history of demographics of the black family you'll see a near steady increase in separation throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, and it spiked when the baby boomer generation came into adulthood. It seems to be more endemic in the community and more nuanced to be primarily caused by welfare IMO.

Click to expand...

what was the rate of black illegitimacy prior to the Great SOciety program? after it?

TurtleDude said:

what was the rate of black illegitimacy prior to the Great SOciety program? after it?

Click to expand...

I'd have to look it up to give you exact numbers, but you'd have to account for population growth in it as well, which I know most people don't do.

xpiher said:

I'd have to look it up to give you exact numbers, but you'd have to account for population growth in it as well, which I know most people don't do.

Click to expand...

how is a rate of illegitimacy dependent on population

TurtleDude said:

how is a rate of illegitimacy dependent on population

Click to expand...

sorry I'm a little buzzed. What I mean is that you'd have to account for population growth to get proper percentages.

xpiher said:

sorry I'm a little buzzed. What I mean is that you'd have to account for population growth to get proper percentages.

Click to expand...

that doesn't make any sense

TurtleDude said:

that doesn't make any sense

Click to expand...

rate of growth in number of kids growing up in "broken homes" can be screwed if you don't take into account the rate of population expansion. Also, the more people you have growing up without parents 1 generation will likely increase the rate even more the next generation since people tend to act in the way they were raised, despite their qualms about it.

For instance, kids that grow up in broken homes are likely to have broken homes themselves. If population is going up, the number of broken homes will also increase.

David D. said:

Just have to chime in and say that I only worked (at least heavily) during summers too in college, for the most part, and I neither had (a) parents who could pay my way through school or (b) a scholarship.

I did this by taking out student loans.

Click to expand...

Interesting ... so I presume you did not go to a "prestigious" college/university then, as, generally speaking, that would not be possible .. student loans do not cover those.

So again .. those with inherited money or with wealthy parents go to higher profile schools (they have decent grades and lots of money) and, unless the student is extremely smart and gets a scholarship, is native American, etc., those who have no inherited money or wealthy parents do not go to those schools.

So how is this equal opportunity again?

Remember, in following with the idea of equal opportunity, people of the same skill level, intelligence level and so on, should be allowed the same quality education from the same colleges.

Does this actually happen?

MusicAdventurer said:

Interesting ... so I presume you did not go to a "prestigious" college/university then, as, generally speaking, that would not be possible .. student loans do not cover those.

Click to expand...

Is it too damn much to ask you to at least try to verify the fantasies you so hold dear? Most selective and very selective colleges have need blind admissions and they'll put together financial aid packages which enable accepted students to attend. A student who is admitted to such colleges then has a choice where he has to balance quality of school versus attractiveness of the aid package offered. I knew plenty of such students during my college experience - 100% total aid packages.

Simple fix. As I said, check their W-2s and past work history. If someone is below a certain level and has a child, they do not qualify for welfare.

Then when the person dies, we'll confiscate the kid. One less leech to worry about.

Why are we so adamant on fighting social Darwinism?

RiverDad said:

Is it too damn much to ask you to at least try to verify the fantasies you so hold dear? Most selective and very selective colleges have need blind admissions and they'll put together financial aid packages which enable accepted students to attend. A student who is admitted to such colleges then has a choice where he has to balance quality of school versus attractiveness of the aid package offered. I knew plenty of such students during my college experience - 100% total aid packages.

Click to expand...

I notice you said "plenty" which means that you admit that not all have total aid packages and I also know plenty who had better grades than their wealthy friends and still could not pay tuition even after exhausting student loans. So stop trying to make yourself feel better by sicking your head in the sand.

Additionally, most of the wealthy have a free ride as they do not have student loan debt after college, while those less fortunate have a huge debt when they first get out of college. This means, hypothetically, if two equal individuals got jobs at the same place, the wealthy person would end up with more money even if their pay rate was the same. So how is this equal opportunity again?

Oh, and don't try to pull out the few exceptions where the employer pays the unpaid student loans. Those against equal opportunity love to point out the rare occasions where things worked out right. That argument is a just a cheap tactic meant to deceive those who don't know any better.

Again ... is this equal opportunity? ..... ?

I don't know how people can "run out" of loan money. After wasting two years getting boring crap done at community college, I transferred to the University of Michigan. Needless to say, this is no cheap school. I then went on and received an MBA afterward (not at U of M).

I was never even close to running out of loan money.

Gipper said:

After wasting two years getting boring crap done at community college, I transferred to the University of Michigan. Needless to say, this is no cheap school. I then went on and received an MBA afterward (not at U of M).

Click to expand...

U of M sucks. Go State!

- U of M grad (Masters)
- MSU grad (Bachelors)

;-)

Gipper said:

I don't know how people can "run out" of loan money. After wasting two years getting boring crap done at community college, I transferred to the University of Michigan. Needless to say, this is no cheap school. I then went on and received an MBA afterward (not at U of M).

I was never even close to running out of loan money.

Click to expand...

Your basing your argument on the few schools you attended? Ridiculous.

Its a funny thing ... believe it or not, different schools have different tuition .. and some of the most prestigious schools are incredibly costly.

So its not a very hard concept.

A. The government provides a certain amount in loans and grants.
B. The school provides a certain amount in scholarships.
C. Any other scholarships.

D. Then their is the tuition bill.

If the sum of A, B and C is greater than D, there is still tuition to be paid.

I didn't realize it was such a hard concept to understand.

Stop trying to escape the fact that equal opportunity does not exist.

You don't think the University of Michigan is prestigious? Ross is a top 5 business school nationally, up there with the likes of the Wharton (UPenn), and Harvard Biz.

So yeah...not ridiculous. If you can't afford to go to Stanford or Duke or Yale for 4 years, don't expect loans to float you.

MusicAdventurer said:

Additionally, most of the wealthy have a free ride as they do not have student loan debt after college, while those less fortunate have a huge debt when they first get out of college.

Click to expand...

As is usually the case when we talk about ways that society is screwed up, this too we can lay at the feet of liberals.

Let's break this problem down. Why do so many people want to go to college. Sure, we can't overlook lots of parties, lots of booze and lots of sex, but underneath all of that is the fact that a college degree prepares them for a better job when they graduate than would be the case with only a high school diploma. Now why is that? Obviously because employers screen applicants by education, that is, employers want to hire college graduates. Now why is that? Does an employer benefit from the fact that you studied the basketweaving practices of the Oaxaca woman in Mexico or that you're a whiz on the politics of Romania during the Ceaușescu regime? No, they value college degrees because these degree signal to the employer that the job applicant has a certain level of intelligence. They value Harvard degrees more than they value Univ. Of Podunk degrees because they believe that Harvard graduates are more intelligent than UofPodunk graduates.

In short, the principal value of college degrees is that they are credentials which testify to a college graduates intelligence, of course, degrees which teach specific skills, like chemical engineering, math, etc do have value for the skills that were taught.

Why don't employers simply use another method to test for job applicant intelligence thus removing the need for young people spending 4 years of their lives and countless tens of thousands of dollars, much of it debt pursing little more than a credential. Employers don't do this because the better method here, testing of IQ, has been made illegal by the liberals on the Supreme Court. Why did the Supreme Court rule in Griggs v. Duke Power that IQ tests are illegal for employers to use when they seek to test for intelligence beyond what is immediately needed for a specific job task? Because there is racial disparity on IQ tests - the infamous disparate impact on minorities.

So, every college student who would rather have begun working and earning money and taking some night school classes for subject material that he found interesting or actually needed on the job is forced to forgo 4+ years of income, spend 4+ years in school taking many classes that he doesn't want to take, and take on much debt because he needs to earn a credential which signals to employers that he is intelligent, a finding that employers could answer with one single 1 hour test.

That's liberals for you - never giving a moments thought to the unintended consequences which arise from their cockamamie schemes and court rulings. In order to protect one class of people from disparate impact they subject a far, far larger class of people to wasted time, lost opportunity and increased debt.

Gipper said:

You don't think the University of Michigan is prestigious? Ross is a top 5 business school nationally, up there with the likes of the Wharton (UPenn), and Harvard Biz.

Click to expand...

When I was there, their national ranking for the Ross school took a hit, citing egotism of their grads. Have they recovered at all? Maybe a prereq humility course set them straight again?

http://www.michiganreview.com/archives/136

We Michigan business alumni are allowed egos. They're well deserved.

Gipper said:

We Michigan business alumni are allowed egos. They're well deserved.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if '07 is any indication, you're allowed your egos or your rankings. Tradeoffs...