Thread: Tackling Poverty Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026654
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How can Christians tackle poverty?
Can we discuss this without it ending up in Hell and without Shipmates accusing one another of being self-righteous hypocrites - or posting in such a way as to suggest that this is what they are?
Meanwhile, here are some top-of-the head suggestions:
- Involvement in political action.
- Involvement in groups like Christians Against Poverty.
- By counter-cultural lifestyles and sharing what they have with other people.
- Through charitable and development work of various kinds.
- By lobbying and supporting causes that aim to eradicate inequality etc.
All easier said than done.
Thoughts?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Join a union.
Do everything they can to promote liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Treat people equally whether rich or poor.
Work towards the overthrow of capitalism.
Criticise Tories unceasingly.
Do everything in their power to avoid all immigration controls and limitations on the rights of people to live and work wherever they wish. Including breaking immoral and oppressive laws.
Support free trade and oppose all laws limiting it.
Expropriate the landed property of the rich.
Make good things and sell them for a fair price.
Pay decent wages.
Educate their children.
Tell the truth.
Don't mourn, organise!
Build better mousetraps.
Make the trains run on time.
Work.
Play.
Share stuff.
...
[ 01. January 2014, 23:24: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
All very good suggestions. Poverty is a complex and multi-faceted problem, so it needs to be addressed on multiple layers rather than any one approach, so these suggestions are all important parts of that holistic effort.
In addition, I personally have been challenged by this quote from Shane Clairborne:
quote:
"I asked participants who claimed to be 'strong followers of Jesus' whether Jesus spent time with the poor. Nearly 80% said yes. Later in the survey, I sneaked in another question. I asked this same group of strong followers whether they spent time with the poor, and less than 2% said they did. I learned a powerful lesson: We can admire and worship Jesus w/o doing what he did. We can applaud what he preached and stood for w/o caring about the same things. We can adore his cross w/o taking up ours. I had come to see the great tragedy in the church is not that rich Christians do not care about the poor but that rich Christians do not know the poor.
After reading that, I came to realize that, while I am active in supporting our church's homeless shelter, I don't really know them. In fact, when I leave the office at 5 pm on cold winter nights, I walk right past the line of men, women, and children that is already forming for that night's shelter. And yet, I realized I don't even know their names. My goal last year was to just learn one person's name and maybe a small bit of their story each night. There were far too many nights, however, when I was caught up in my own thoughts and hurrying off to my own home, and let the opportunity pass. That might make a good resolution to renew this year.
Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on
:
All Of the above suggestions sound fantastic,and the resources of the wealthiest organisation in the world would be well placed to finance it all.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What organization would that be?
Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on
:
I suspect the christian church would be the wealthiest organization in the world.It owns some of the best real estate, and greatest works of art on this planet.But maybe I'm wrong and they are only the second wealthiest organization.Even at the second or third wealthiest they could go a long way to alleviating the grinding poverty that is to be seen in some counties,or even in their own neighborhoods.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What is this "Christian Church" organization of which you speak?
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I would support Fair Trade over Free Trade.
I would ask pointed questions at political meetings and write often to the paper (though a lot of the latter letters are about climate change).
The current trade talks in the Pacific seem to aim mostly at removing decision making from our elected representatives in favour of multinationals.
GG
Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on
:
Well Mr Beeswax, I see in your bio you are a priest in the episcopal church which I believe is loosely associated with the Anglican church which is loosely associated with the Catholic church,add these to the Presbyterians,the baptists,the Methodists the orthodox church and the countless numbers of denominations and christian organizations that are spread around the world and it seems to me that that might just be thought of as a world wide church. Actually I'm a bit surprised a person who is a part of the system can't see that the church is a multinational money making organization. I bet Jesus is proud.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
Actually I'm a bit surprised a person who is a part of the system can't see that the church is a multinational money making organization. I bet Jesus is proud.
Do larger churches spend money on unnecessary things? Do they sometimes lack proper focus? I think that argument can be made. But I am not seeing your statement, I am thinking it a bit more extreme than observation demonstrates.
Listen, I am not shy about confronting practice v. preach, but I think this statement a bit too far.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A general reminder, since this thread is a spin off from a Hell thread, as Sioni Sais has pointed out there (in the "self-righteous hypocrite" Hell call to pydseybare). Which means that it is to be conducted under Purgatory guidelines. The subject will produce strong views and differences of opinion. But don't import Hellish arguments into Purgatory, without restating them in terms which avoid ranting or personal attack.
Also, I'm a bit bothered that the church discussion may become a tangent and take over the thread, but there is a relationship between tackling poverty and church wealth, so we'll see how that goes.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do everything in their power to avoid all immigration controls and limitations on the rights of people to live and work wherever they wish.
While that would certainly work to destroy wealth in those areas where it exists, whether it would do anything to alleviate poverty is far less clear. It seems far more likely to me that it would instead lead to poverty for all.
The way to tackle poverty is to seek to make everyone rich, not to make everyone poor so that we can't tell the difference.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
Well Mr Beeswax, I see in your bio you are a priest in the episcopal church which I believe is loosely associated with the Anglican church which is loosely associated with the Catholic church,add these to the Presbyterians,the baptists,the Methodists the orthodox church and the countless numbers of denominations and christian organizations that are spread around the world and it seems to me that that might just be thought of as a world wide church.
That'll be 'loosely' as in 'not at all' or even 'diametrically opposed to'. ISTM rather like saying 'You have a Scottish name. And so do you. And you. You must have a common perception and unified outlook on life'. Cue the wars as to who is/ is not a true Scot for a start....
I have no brief for defending Christianity - my own view is that it is a multitude of religions and probably none of them bearing much relation to anything that went on in1st C Palestine. But I am taking issue with your statements because they show a lack of grasp of actuality. The first rule of effective criticism is to know what you are talking about.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
Well Mr Beeswax, I see in your bio you are a priest in the episcopal church which I believe is loosely associated with the Anglican church which is loosely associated with the Catholic church,add these to the Presbyterians,the baptists,the Methodists the orthodox church and the countless numbers of denominations and christian organizations that are spread around the world and it seems to me that that might just be thought of as a world wide church. Actually I'm a bit surprised a person who is a part of the system can't see that the church is a multinational money making organization. I bet Jesus is proud.
Yes, there are loose connections but loose connections do not an organization make. The Methodists are connected to the Roman Catholics in much the same way as Burger King is connected to McDonalds. There isn't even the kind of connection you mention within most denominations. Trinity Wall Street has a ton of money. That doesn't mean they send much of it to St. Swithen's in Poughkeepsie that struggles to pay all it's bills.
My treasurer and the treasurer of most churches of all denominations would be surprised to know that this Christian Church of which you speak is an international money making organization. We rely entirely on donations given by local members. Many of us struggle to pay all our bills. We would love to get our share of the profits, which according to you are quite large, made by Christian Church Inc.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
What would help, I feel, is that there should be a definition of poverty that is a reflection of what poverty really is.
At the moment the UK defninition of poverty, in financial terms, is having less than 60% of the national average salary after rent/mortgage, income tax, council tax and water rates have all been paid.
Average salary in the UK is £26,000.
That means that poverty means having a net amount of £15,599 per annum after you've paid those major financial commitments.
This is cash in your pocket of £307 per week after you've paid rent/rates/taxes.
How is that poverty?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Average income may be £26,000, but 65% of all UK households live at incomes below that because the distribution is skewed. Source- Institute of Fiscal Studies There's a pdf report to read.
That report also shows incomes are falling -
quote:
In fact, 2010–11 saw very large falls in average household incomes: median income in the UK
fell by 3.1% in real terms (from £432 to £419 per week), while mean income fell by about 5.7% in real terms (from £542 to £511). (from page 19 of the report)
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What would help, I feel, is that there should be a definition of poverty that is a reflection of what poverty really is.
At the moment the UK defninition of poverty, in financial terms, is having less than 60% of the national average salary after rent/mortgage, income tax, council tax and water rates have all been paid.
Average salary in the UK is £26,000.
That means that poverty means having a net amount of £15,599 per annum after you've paid those major financial commitments.
This is cash in your pocket of £307 per week after you've paid rent/rates/taxes.
How is that poverty?
For a single person I agree it isn't (last year, by that definition, I was poor ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) but I would not like to have to feed and clothe a family on that.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I haven't said it's not 'low income'. i haven't said that it's not easy.
But it is not poverty!
I listened to the leader of a charitable organisation give a speech last year about poverty in the UK.
The first comment was: "There are 3 million children in poverty in Britain!"
OK I thought - maybe under that definition...
5 minutes later came the comment: "There are 3 million children starving in Britain."
No. There are not!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Average income may be £26,000, but 65% of all UK households live at incomes below that because the distribution is skewed. Source- Institute of Fiscal Studies There's a pdf report to read.
That report also shows incomes are falling -
quote:
In fact, 2010–11 saw very large falls in average household incomes: median income in the UK
fell by 3.1% in real terms (from £432 to £419 per week), while mean income fell by about 5.7% in real terms (from £542 to £511). (from page 19 of the report)
When you say 'income', what do you mean?
Have you factored in the fact that by April this year no one earning £10,000 or below will pay any tax whatsoever and their disposable income will have risen?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
This is Jack Monroe's description of what it was like for her - Hunger Hurts. Would you say that was poverty? Did it exist?
She handed in the petition to request the debate in Parliament on Food Banks before Christmas. So she's trying to raise awareness and support others even as she's back in work and earning.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Mudfrog - nice big report on poverty linked there. I suspect it's gross income.
But it doesn't really matter whether we're talking net or gross income when 65% are earning less than the figure you're bandying about as too much on 2010-11 figures, which were the most recent I've seen. And predictions were of further falls in income in 2012 and 2013.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I'd like to know why £300 a week is poverty.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I haven't said anywhere that £300 a week is poverty. I have said that 65% of people are earning less than £300 a week and some of them are definitely in poverty.
After rent and rates and bills I'm on a lot less than £300 a week. I don't start with a lot more than £300 before paying that lot.
[ 02. January 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Dunno about the English situation (which does seem to have been made much worse by the present government), but I do know that most "conservative" policies in Canada and the US have been directed at making the poor worse off.
Not just in the sense of taking away food and other welfare support, but also in the sense of allowing corporations to reduce wage rates to the point that it is less possible for the working poor to make ends meet. When WalMart can blatantly expect that food stamps will be necessary for their workers, you know that the system isn't doing what it is supposed to do.
The Harper government is now regularly being described as mean, out of touch and doctrinaire in ways that are not helpful. Maybe a better time will come.
Rant over.
On the topic of knowing people, we've shifted our priorities a bit. Rather than having "fellowship" or "agape" meals for the faithful, we are now having potlucks that deliberately include our neighbours - at least, those who live relatively close to our church. Handbills go out to the low-rent area nearby and people are encouraged to come for supper. Our visitors are now beginning to contribute to the potluck. They are grateful that we do not proselytise - rather, we just have a meal together and any leftovers go away with the visitors if possible. Everyone serves/is served/ helps themselves/each other and we meet. Trying to avoid "Oh, look how we are helping you"
Rather like Pope Francis thing of meeting atheists and seeing their humanity and child of God status.
Whether we can grow this into a larger or more complete sampling of the village, we don't know, but it is "The Right Thing To Do" for now. If a need is seen, a response will be there.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This is Jack Monroe's description of what it was like for her - Hunger Hurts. Would you say that was poverty? Did it exist?
She handed in the petition to request the debate in Parliament on Food Banks before Christmas. So she's trying to raise awareness and support others even as she's back in work and earning.
Oh yes indeed that's poverty.
I do not deny it exists - I myself have seen it many times in my work as a Salvation Army officer.
It's heartbreaking.
But let's not insult people like Jack Monroe and suggest that they should be lumped together with people who are living on £300 a week AFTER their rent and council tax has been paid.
She might be trapped at present in hopeless poverty - but someone with income of £1200 a month is no way in her shoes!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I haven't said anywhere that £300 a week is poverty. I have said that 65% of people are earning less than £300 a week and some of them are definitely in poverty.
After rent and rates and bills I'm on a lot less than £300 a week. I don't start with a lot more than £300 before paying that lot.
People on £71 a week are in poverty.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Yes, I know, I was redundant for 10 months.
And a proportion of people on £71 a week are now paying a chunk (11% or 25% of that rent) towards rent as they are stuck in housing seen as having surplus rooms and a proportion of the council tax bill. Which further erodes that £71 a week.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I haven't said anywhere that £300 a week is poverty.
Hi ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You yourself may not have said that but that's what the campaigners are saying - poverty is anything under that 15,999 net amount. The Opposition throw it at the government, even the churches are using this definition of poverty.
People on £71 a week are in poverty.
People on £290 - £300 a week are evidently not!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, I know, I was redundant for 10 months.
And a proportion of people on £71 a week are now paying a chunk (11% or 25% of that rent) towards rent as they are stuck in housing seen as having surplus rooms and a proportion of the council tax bill. Which further erodes that £71 a week.
Erm.... some of them are 'stuck' I know people in one bedroom flats too.
We mustn't put everyone in the same category.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Mudfrog, I know not all single people are caught by the bedroom tax. That's why I used the phrase a proportion, meaning some.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
For a single person I agree it isn't (last year, by that definition, I was poor ) but I would not like to have to feed and clothe a family on that.
What, you wouldn't want to do it on £300 a week? How quickly do your kids go through clothes?
The weekly food shop for a family of four would be what, about £90? Add on about £50 for transport costs (and I think that's a relatively high estimate for one week), and about £25 for gas and electricity (just over what I pay to heat/light a three-bed semi), and you're looking at £135 left in the account - surely that's enough to save up for annual expenses not covered already, as well as a decent amount of luxuries.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Mudfrog, I know not all single people are caught by the bedroom tax. That's why I used the phrase a proportion, meaning some.
Yes I know, i'm sorry. When I read your post again that word jumped out at me and I was going to delete my post but it was too late.
For what it's worth, I agree with the principle of the removal of the spare room subsidy because i don't think tax payers should should pay for a single person to live in a needlessly large 3 bedroom house.
This is already the case for private tenants - and there are many people in 'poverty' who rent privately and get lower housing benefit than their social-housing-dwelling neighbours. I haven't heard anyone decrying that particular system!
BUT what I do think was a mistake was to apply it to existing tenants. I believe it should have been introduced to new claimants from, say, April.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Join a union.
Do everything they can to promote liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Treat people equally whether rich or poor.
Work towards the overthrow of capitalism.
Criticise Tories unceasingly.
Do everything in their power to avoid all immigration controls and limitations on the rights of people to live and work wherever they wish. Including breaking immoral and oppressive laws.
Support free trade and oppose all laws limiting it.
Expropriate the landed property of the rich.
Make good things and sell them for a fair price.
Pay decent wages.
Educate their children.
Tell the truth.
Don't mourn, organise!
Build better mousetraps.
Make the trains run on time.
Work.
Play.
Share stuff.
...
Ken - I think it is time for your family to get the power of attorney registered with the Court.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
For a single person I agree it isn't (last year, by that definition, I was poor ) but I would not like to have to feed and clothe a family on that.
What, you wouldn't want to do it on £300 a week? How quickly do your kids go through clothes?
The weekly food shop for a family of four would be what, about £90? Add on about £50 for transport costs (and I think that's a relatively high estimate for one week), and about £25 for gas and electricity (just over what I pay to heat/light a three-bed semi), and you're looking at £135 left in the account - surely that's enough to save up for annual expenses not covered already, as well as a decent amount of luxuries.
What you paying in mortgage payments?
Jengie
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to know why £300 a week is poverty.
Look at it this way. £300 per week is a shit wage.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Ken - I think it is time for your family to get the power of attorney registered with the Court.
Aumbry, you've been here long enough to know better than to make personal attacks in Purgatory, particularly in a post that contributes nothing else. Don't.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to know why £300 a week is poverty.
Look at it this way. £300 per week is a shit wage.
For a bank manager maybe but it's still not poverty.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What would help, I feel, is that there should be a definition of poverty that is a reflection of what poverty really is.
At the moment the UK defninition of poverty, in financial terms, is having less than 60% of the national average salary after rent/mortgage, income tax, council tax and water rates have all been paid.
Average salary in the UK is £26,000.
That means that poverty means having a net amount of £15,599 per annum after you've paid those major financial commitments.
This is cash in your pocket of £307 per week after you've paid rent/rates/taxes.
How is that poverty?
I think you must be getting some wires crossed here, because by your version of the definition I'm below the poverty line, and no organisation on earth considers me to be living in poverty. I think if we're talking about net income it will be a net income less than 60% of average net income, not a net income less than 60% of average gross. It's also usually calculated from median earnings, not the mean, so will be lower.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... quite a thread so far and thought-provoking ...
How about poverty in its global sense? Not necessarily people on low incomes here but people who are living at subsistence level in plenty of countries across the world.
How can we help alleviate that?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Definitions of poverty:
quote:
The key UK government measures take 60 per cent of median income as the poverty line. But while this is easy to measure and does provide useful comparisons over time, it is essentially an arbitrary definition and has been much criticised, most recently in the UK in the Field Review
The median wage and average wage are different. The 2010-11 figures I was quoting from earlier gave a median figure of £419, against the mean figure of £511. 60% of that median gives a weekly income of £251.40 net (after taxes have been taken off and benefits added) before rent and other costs.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... quite a thread so far and thought-provoking ...
How about poverty in its global sense? Not necessarily people on low incomes here but people who are living at subsistence level in plenty of countries across the world.
How can we help alleviate that?
Now yes, that I can discuss!
Poverty is where one has not enough to eat, wear, use as comfortable permanent shelter, recourse to medicine, education or safety.
That of course, in some limited ways, can apply to people in the west, but globally there is huge poverty.
One radical way to eliminate poverty in some countries, I'm afraid to suggest, is regime change! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
You'll not eliminate poverty in places like Zimbabwe when you have a president like Mugabe in charge!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Nor will you by invading the country and trying to impose a solution from outside. Afghanistan and Iraq still have a lot of poverty, though Iraq is doing slightly better now the west isn't blockading it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Nor will you by invading the country and trying to impose a solution from outside. Afghanistan and Iraq still have a lot of poverty, though Iraq is doing slightly better now the west isn't blockading it.
Yes I know - I was writing tongue in cheek; but the problem is still there! The corruption in many of these governments is the direct cause of the poverty in those countries.
It's one thing to put a band aid on the presenting problem (did you see what I did there?) but eliminating the causes of poverty must involve a change of policy by the leadership.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
So, we, as Christians, can't really do much of anything about global poverty other than throw jellyfish back into the ocean. In other words, Christians can do on a global level what I with my discretionary fund and outreach budget can do on a local level. I'd be quite depressed if I thought Christianity was all about providing material things to people.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I haven't said anywhere that £300 a week is poverty.
Hi
You yourself may not have said that but that's what the campaigners are saying - poverty is anything under that 15,999 net amount. The Opposition throw it at the government, even the churches are using this definition of poverty.
People on £71 a week are in poverty.
People on £290 - £300 a week are evidently not!
It really depends where you live - in areas like the South East where rents are extortionate, someone can earn £300 a week and easily be in poverty. The basic cost of living has increased enormously (eg food prices, utilities etc) and many on £300 a week will have to choose between heating and eating. Childcare is another huge cost.
Someone on £300 a week with no dependents in Newcastle is probably not in poverty, someone on £300 with two children and a disabled partner who has had their DLA claim rejected by ATOS, living in Kent is very likely to be in poverty.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What you paying in mortgage payments?
The £300 was after mortgage/rent payments are taken care of.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, we, as Christians, can't really do much of anything about global poverty other than throw jellyfish back into the ocean. In other words, Christians can do on a global level what I with my discretionary fund and outreach budget can do on a local level. I'd be quite depressed if I thought Christianity was all about providing material things to people.
Christianity isn't all about that. This thread is very nearly all about that though.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Can I flag up this post?
After digging around a bit the Government doesn't use the formula Mudfrog was giving earlier, but this one:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Definitions of poverty:
quote:
The key UK government measures take 60 per cent of median income as the poverty line. But while this is easy to measure and does provide useful comparisons over time, it is essentially an arbitrary definition and has been much criticised, most recently in the UK in the Field Review
The median wage and average wage are different.
The 2010-11 figures I was quoting from earlier gave a median figure of £419, against the mean figure of £511.
60% of that median gives a weekly income of £251.40 net (after taxes have been taken off and benefits added) before rent and other costs.
So the actual figure for poverty is £251.40 (on 2010-11 figures) before rent and other costs were taken out. That figure is unlikely to have gone up in the previous two years as incomes have been falling.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Converted to dollars that's about $413.05/week or a monthly salary of $1652.20. Federal poverty level in the United States in 2013 was $1627.50 for a family of 3. Throwing that out there so it makes sense for those of us across the pond. Somebody else will have to do the conversion to Canadian and Australian dollars.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
More info than simple income figures are needed. Have a look at income inequality. It has increased in most of our countries, example link. Notable is the countries are in the most equal list.
When one of my kids lived in Norway I saw stats that put income equality together with positive health outcomes and crime. Equality of income is associated with both. We might thus see the rich-poor gap and gap growth as public health and social policy issues rather than simple ideological positions. Or as items of responsibility, but we have effectively eliminated morality from such decisions and, in our minds, decided Jesus likes our ideas.
--I am on a not so smart phone at the moment or I wld post more links.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I don't agree with that. Tackling poverty is about making sure everyone has at least a decent standard of living, not about making sure everyone has the same standard of living.
If there are no poor people, it matters not that some are mega-rich while others are merely rich. Poverty has still been eradicated.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If there are no poor people, it matters not that some are mega-rich while others are merely rich. Poverty has still been eradicated.
I think it a reasonable argument that the mere presence of a mega-rich class is a driver of poverty, and by making a society in which it is difficult to become that rich, poverty is less likely.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think it a reasonable argument that the mere presence of a mega-rich class is a driver of poverty
In other words, you don't think a society such as the one I described - where the standard of living of the poorest person corresponds to what we would today call "rich" - could ever be possible.
I'd be interested to hear why.
quote:
and by making a society in which it is difficult to become that rich, poverty is less likely.
I disagree. Merely preventing certain individuals from becoming mega-rich doesn't put any more food on any other individual's plate. The London banker being denied his massive bonus doesn't benefit the unemployed Sheffield steelworker at all - it just drags the former a little further down towards the latter. I prefer solutions that drag the latter up towards the former.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
In a post-scarcity society, you'd be right to say it doesn't matter how much group A has, because group Z has more than sufficient.
However, we don't have a post-scarcity society. Not only do we not have a post-scarcity society, but it's in the best interest of the rich not to have one, because then there'd be no kudos in being rich. The rich often get rich at the expense of the poor. The rich hoard land and resources rather than utilise them. The more mega-rich there are in a society, the more poor people there are - if you want to work towards the elimination of poverty (and don't have access to a nanoforge replicator), you need to work towards curtailing the excesses of the mega-rich.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Is it not possible to ensure a minimum comfortable standard of living for everyone (i.e. to eradicate poverty) while still permitting some individuals to be (or become) rich?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In other words, you don't think a society such as the one I described - where the standard of living of the poorest person corresponds to what we would today call "rich" - could ever be possible.
But don't we have that now? In the UK or US, most of today's poor are unimaginably wealthy by the standards of a mediaeval peasant or Victorian pauper.
The US is not exactly known for its generous welfare state, but even the homeless and indigent are better off than many pioneers.
Standards have changed. Things that we assume are basic necessities now would have been luxuries (or magic) to our ancestors.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
And things our ancestors never needed to do--like commute 30 miles to work each way--are now absolute necessities for some people
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Indeed, thanks to "the recession" (TM) my office was merged with another and went from being 500 yards from my front door, to 40 miles down the motorway - a journey I've now done every day for 4 years. Demands, standards and expectations are constantly changing.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it not possible to ensure a minimum comfortable standard of living for everyone (i.e. to eradicate poverty) while still permitting some individuals to be (or become) rich?
Yes, but that needs the cooperation of the rich, which they evidently appear to be withholding.
Instead, the poor (in this country at least) are being shat upon, while the rich have not just increasing wealth, but an increasing share of the wealth. While this continues, the eradication of poverty will remain a class struggle, poor versus rich, socialism versus neo-capitalism.
I wish I could say it was different, but it seems that the accumulation of wealth trumps most things, and the rich never give up any of their privileges willingly. The longer it goes on, the more likely it'll end badly.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it not possible to ensure a minimum comfortable standard of living for everyone (i.e. to eradicate poverty) while still permitting some individuals to be (or become) rich?
Jeffrey Sachs (whose research was the basis for the millennial goals) seems to think so-- although ending what he calls "extreme poverty" will require sacrifices.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Wealth is power, that's the great problem with inequality. The rich can pay for better schools, better jobs for their children, better lawyers, better treatment when they're sick, better service all round. Money buys political influence and social status, and that's a zero sum game.
Also, I think it's misleading to think of poverty in terms of things we can buy. All our spending can, in the last resort, be factored as the purchasing of other people's time. Some things we buy are nothing but other people's time: care for the elderly, piano lessons, service in a restaurant. Other goods can be resolved into time: the time it took the miner to cut the coal I burnt, plus the time of the bus driver that got him to work, and the time of the people who manufactured the bus, and the payroll staff that paid them, and the health and safety officers, architects, plumbers, town planners, etc.
Within our economy we are all buying each other's time, and our relative rates of pay determine how much we can buy and how much we have to work. TVs may get cheaper and cheaper, but things that require lots of other people's time will always be expensive for the poor.
Cheap energy helps, because people's work is more productive, especially manual work. It also enables rich countries to outsource production to low wage economies. It is a labour extender, but it doesn't change the overall picture.
[ 03. January 2014, 15:01: Message edited by: hatless ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
It's all relative and will remain relative.
Poverty in the West is wealth in Third World countries. Arguably, Western societies guarantee through social welfare and charity that nearly every person has food, shelter, clothes, a free education, and some access to medical care. Problem is the rich in the West are so much richer than most of the rich people (though certainly not all) in the Third World.
The middle and working classes look at what they get for working 40+ hours a week, compare it to the super rich, and realize they don't have much more than those living off of welfare and charity. As a result, we start to resent the rich. I say we because I resent most of them as much as anybody. They are greedy bastards. Would it kill them to be satisfied with being just stinkin rich instead of filthy stinkin rich? Couldn't they pay a living wage to their workers? Couldn't they keep jobs in the nation that created the environment for their success? So...I think most of us can agree the rich need to be taken down a peg even if we disagree on how many pegs the rich need to be taken down.
But, remember, it's all relative. Mao tried to achieve a completely equal society in China. How did that work? Pot tried to create a completely equal society in Cambodia. How did that work? Ah, but what about Scandinavia? Scandinavia is composed of four, resource rich nations with small and homogenous nations. I don't think a single one of them has a population greater than New York and New York is far more diverse. Scandinavia is also not purely equal.
Unless a society is completely equal, somebody will always have more. If the opportunity for inequality exists, those wanting more will strive to get it. The lucky and talented will get more. The winners will then enjoy the spoils of success. The losers will resent them for it. Before long, you'll have calls for more equality. Sure, we all have clothes but their clothes are nicer. Yes, we all have basic amenities but they have more. Is it really right that the children of the relative poor have cheaper clothes and fewer amenities than the rich? It puts them at a disadvantage.
So, let's have even more equality. Now, here is the thing. The poor we will have with us always. The lumpen proletariat we will also have. There will always be people who don't want to contribute to society. Paul recognized it in Thessalonika. Some will break the law to get more. Others will be content to mooch off the rest of society. All the work required to live in a modern society will still need to be done. How long before the most intelligent and most talented start to resent everybody else because they aren't allowed to benefit from the sacrifices and contributions they make?
Well, perhaps, those blessed individuals could be content with the prestige and respect given to them. Perhaps, they could. However, prestige and respect only work if you care about prestige and respect. I'm thinking that more readily happens in small and relatively homogenous communities.
As I see it, the solution is less centralization. We need more federalism in the United States. Let states have more power. Let cities have more power. I'm more conservative than most Shipmates. However, I believe that Vermont should have the ability to create a socialist utopia. I want Mayor Blasio to have the power to deal with inequality in New York. Yes, I also want the federal government to leave the red states alone as well.
Now, for the life of me, I don't know what any of that has to do with Christianity. As I see it, we live in a fallen world populated by fallen people. The ideal society cannot be created by humans. Only God can establish that.
Christians should spend more time spreading the gospel and making disciples. Only a society of the sanctified can live in perfect harmony. Only the second coming of Christ will bring that to fruition. Spending to much time arguing about politics and how we can usher in the Kingdom by legislative fiat or revolution only distracts Christians from doing what we really can be doing to make the world a better place.
I suspect we spend so much time discussing politics because we've lost faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. We have a form of godliness but deny the power. Christianity has been reduced to a collection of moral musings. Christians love those musings. We love the person who said them. Many of us have just ceased to believe he is anything more than a great (perhaps even the greatest) teacher among any number of great teachers. Given the loss of faith, I guess it makes sense to argue endlessly about politics.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
BA, you make good points. However I am hearing about larger gaps between rich and poor in our countries. The gap has increased. So our progress seems a little negative. The major difference I have personally noticed is lower tax rates for higher income levels and fairly steady on low and moderate incomes. I have noticed the trend since the early 1980s personally.
But I think the real problem for us is the tendency to decide that God and Jesus bless our fiscal policies and economic plans and consider them superior to other plans. At least this seems to be our leaders' suggestions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I suspect we spend so much time discussing politics because we've lost faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. We have a form of godliness but deny the power. Christianity has been reduced to a collection of moral musings. Christians love those musings. We love the person who said them. Many of us have just ceased to believe he is anything more than a great (perhaps even the greatest) teacher among any number of great teachers. Given the loss of faith, I guess it makes sense to argue endlessly about politics.
And the poor will simply turn around and quote Marx at you. I have no qualms about wanting to change the world to better reflect what I believe the Kingdom of God to be. If all you do is offer people pie in the sky when they die, and do nothing about justice and righteousness here on Earth, they'll turn away from you.
What you're saying is the problem, not the solution.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
That's fine. I'm Calvinist enough to accept that not everybody will accept the Gospel. Those who reject it will be rich, poor, and middle class. Marxism will give the poor more war and more death and more disillusion. They'll meet the new boss and find he's the same as the old boss. Objectivism will lead to the same downfall similar philosophies brought to the monarchies of Europe. Marx was an atheist. Rand was an atheist. Christianity shouldn't be driven by the political philosophies of atheists. Hearts and lives have to be changed before this world gets any better. I believe in a God who does just that. I have no use for a religion that does little more than sanctify political opinions.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Beeswax Altar: quote:
Poverty in the West is wealth in Third World countries.
This is only relevant to the British and American poor if they are able to move to a Third World country whilst retaining their current possessions and income. If they can't (and there are squads of people at international borders to ensure that they can't) then they are stuck with the high cost of living in their own society, and being told that having an indoor toilet is the height of luxury for the majority of the world's population does not really help them work out where their next meal is coming from.
quote:
Poverty in the West is wealth in Third World countries. Arguably, Western societies guarantee through social welfare and charity that nearly every person has food, shelter, clothes, a free education, and some access to medical care.
And yet we still have homeless people, food banks and poor children in the UK are lagging behind rich ones. People in the UK have died because they couldn't afford to heat their houses. I wouldn't describe them as rich.
I could mention the US healthcare system, but let's just confine ourselves to the NHS - which is mostly free apart from prescription charges, dental treatment, eye tests and parking fees at hospitals. It has been estimated that cancer treatment can cost as much as repayments on your mortgage. I'd hate to think how much it would be if you had to pay the full medical costs as well.
[ 03. January 2014, 16:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
No one quotes Marx. They mostly aspire to get work that pays a living wage, to have some meaning in life, and to be loved. I have only ever heard earnest university students whose education is funded by their parents quoting Marx, and today, probably reading it off their phone screen, the phone also paid for by mummy and daddy.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And things our ancestors never needed to do--like commute 30 miles to work each way--are now absolute necessities for some people
Yes, including the rich.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by JaneR:
This is only relevant to the British and American poor if they are able to move to a Third World country whilst retaining their current possessions and income. If they can't (and there are squads of people at international borders to ensure that they can't) then they are stuck with the high cost of living in their own society, and being told that having an indoor toilet is the height of luxury for the majority of the world's population does not really help them work out where their next meal is coming from.
Sure, they wonder where their next meal will come from but they don't starve. In Third World nations, people actually starve to death. I doubt many in the West spend that much time worrying about where their next meal will come from. Towards the end of the month, more people than usual worry about where their next meal will come from than the rest of the month. Some of that is due to an inability to plan and prepare meals. Of course, we could do a better job teaching such skills. Come the revolution, people lacking such skills will not pose much of a threat to the army of their bourgeoisie capitalist overlords.
quote:
originally posted by JaneR:
And yet we still have homeless people, food banks and poor children in the UK are lagging behind rich ones. People in the UK have died because they couldn't afford to heat their houses. I wouldn't describe them as rich.
I could mention the US healthcare system, but let's just confine ourselves to the NHS - which is mostly free apart from prescription charges, dental treatment, eye tests and parking fees at hospitals. It has been estimated that cancer treatment can cost as much as repayments on your mortgage. I'd hate to think how much it would be if you had to pay the full medical costs as well.
I said welfare benefits and charity. Food banks are charities. Sure, the rich have access to better education. The rich will always have better access to education. They'll always have access to better medical care as well. That's the point.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In Third World nations, people actually starve to death. I doubt many in the West spend that much time worrying about where their next meal will come from. Towards the end of the month, more people than usual worry about where their next meal will come from than the rest of the month. Some of that is due to an inability to plan and prepare meals.
(bold mine)
This is largely a misconception. Yes, this describes some people, but it denies the reality of many others. When living at the lower end of the economic spectrum, there is little extra. This means even small unforeseen occurrences put one into a bind.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I don't know the situation in the USA but in the UK there are hundreds of thousand of people, mostly unemployed and many with children, living in what is laughably called temporary accomodation. How do you plan and prepare meals when you have nowhere to store and prepare food, let alone cook it and eat it apart from sat around your bed in a B&B? They are the people who eat out at McD's, KFC and the chip shop with Subway providing a healthy alternative. While the benefits can provide an adequate diet, you need a kitchen, of some sort, to do it.
Solving parts of the problem solves none of it. You can teach a man to fish as the saying goes, but if he is not allowed near a river, what's the point?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I have no use for a religion that does little more than sanctify political opinions.
Bzzt. That's exactly what you're doing.
I have no use for a religion that does little more than heap platitudes on the poor and does nothing to confront the rich.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I did say some. Describes several people I've met. However, I will say it is a difference between the rural and urban poor.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I have no use for a religion that does little more than sanctify political opinions.
Bzzt. That's exactly what you're doing.
I have no use for a religion that does little more than heap platitudes on the poor and does nothing to confront the rich.
No, I'm not. Read my entire post. I have political opinions. I would never claim to know if Jesus would support them or not. As far as I'm concerned, politics is always about choosing the lesser of evils. The Kingdom of God is more than the least evil society that humans can build using their own power and wisdom.
Confronting the rich with what? The teachings of an ancient Jewish teacher killed 2,000 years ago? Who cares? The teaching of God Incarnate would be a different story. But...we tend to downplay or turn the deity of Christ into a metaphor.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I see it, we live in a fallen world populated by fallen people. The ideal society cannot be created by humans. Only God can establish that.
I'll go along with that . Only it won't happen in this world but the next . Whatsmore I believe we who call ourselves Christians will be lined up with non-Christians , and the mega-rich will stand equal to the pitifully poor.
There'll be no more poverty , no more platitudes, no more political posturing.
In the meantime I finding myself wanting to give more to direct-help disaster charities and less to the church.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I'm not. Read my entire post. I have political opinions. I would never claim to know if Jesus would support them or not. As far as I'm concerned, politics is always about choosing the lesser of evils. The Kingdom of God is more than the least evil society that humans can build using their own power and wisdom.
Bzzt. Deciding that you can't know if Jesus would support your political opinions (genocide? labour camps? wars of expansion? involuntary live organ donations?) is both a religions and a political decision in itself, and not a very good one at that.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Beeswax Altar: quote:
The rich will always have better access to education. They'll always have access to better medical care as well. That's the point.
That may be your point. Mine is that even with an allegedly level playing field such as the NHS, some people have to choose between buying food and paying for transport to their hospital appointment. I say these people are poor. You seem to be denying their existence, or saying they have nothing to grumble about because people in other countries are much worse off. I notice you haven't commented on last winter's extra deaths. Presumably it's OK for people to die of the cold if they've got something to eat?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I'm not. Read my entire post. I have political opinions. I would never claim to know if Jesus would support them or not. As far as I'm concerned, politics is always about choosing the lesser of evils. The Kingdom of God is more than the least evil society that humans can build using their own power and wisdom.
Bzzt. Deciding that you can't know if Jesus would support your political opinions (genocide? labour camps? wars of expansion? involuntary live organ donations?) is both a religions and a political decision in itself, and not a very good one at that.
Enough misery was caused in the name of Karl Marx alone. God only knows what damage can be in the names of both Jesus AND Marx. We aren't going to agree. You see my position as being part of the problem. I see your position as part of the problem. You want to put your faith in humans to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven? Good luck with that.
quote:
originally posted by JaneR:
That may be your point. Mine is that even with an allegedly level playing field such as the NHS, some people have to choose between buying food and paying for transport to their hospital appointment. I say these people are poor. You seem to be denying their existence, or saying they have nothing to grumble about because people in other countries are much worse off. I notice you haven't commented on last winter's extra deaths. Presumably it's OK for people to die of the cold if they've got something to eat?
The article said most of the deaths were caused by flu, respiratory illness, and heart disease. From that article, I don't know if one single person died because they didn't have access to heat on cold nights. I'm not taking a position on whether it's right for people to grumble or not grumble. My point is that people will grumble no matter what you give them. Some people will always demand more. How about this? At what point, would you tell a poor person, "I'm sorry but you've been given enough." And, yes, rich people will never be satisfied with how much money they have either. Again, that's the point.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
People in the UK have died because they couldn't afford to heat their houses.
I would like to see the evidence for this - that someone literally froze to death because the heating was no on because they had no choice.
Let's not forget that every pensioner gets a £200 tax free fuel allowance to pay for their heating - £300 if you're over 80 - and on top of that, if the temperature dips below 0 degrees for 7 days you get an extra £25 for that 7 day period.
AFAIAA no one is allowed to have their heating cut off by the energy companies for non-payment of fuel bills.
It seems to me that if anyone is turning their heating off it's out of ignorance of the circumstances and irrational fear of inability to pay.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Mudfrog
Here you are
Jengie
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Could you point out where the report gives the number of people that died because they couldn't afford to heat their homes? Mudfrog wanted evidence that a person died because their heat was cut off due to inability to pay their heating bill. I didn't see any such evidence in that report. Perhaps, I missed it.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
or perhaps you assumed that if people didn't have enough money to (securely) heat and buy food that they would still try running on full heat till their power cuts off (instead of turning the thermostat down, because they could just put on another jumper and a bit of flu won't kill them).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You want to put your faith in humans to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven? Good luck with that.
Actually, no.
We'll never get to the destination on our own. The signposts are clear enough, though. We can differ on policy, but "does this oppress the poor?" and "does this promote justice?" are the minimum yardsticks we should measure those policies against.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... You want to put your faith in humans to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven? Good luck with that. ......
So since humans can't create the Kingdom of Heaven, there's no need to do anything about Hellish conditions on Earth? I don't buy that. To paraphrase Teresa of Avila, God has no hands but ours to do God's work. Sometimes our hands get together to do God's work in churches or governments or charities, sometimes we work as individuals. There's never a single perfect solution, but multiple approaches can add up to a positive change.
It's all too easy to throw one's hands up and say that since we're all fallen humans, life will always be crap. It's a nice, lazy way to blame God for all our miseries, duck any responsibility to alleviate the misery that we ourselves cause, and cynically undermine any effort to not cause it in the first place.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Mudfrog
Here you are
Jengie
That paper says nothing about why there are more deaths in winter. It certainly isn't proof that all the extra deaths during those months are due to an inability to heat their homes.
Maybe people fall over more in winter, because of all the ice. Maybe there are more car crashes for the same reason. Maybe the fact that the Christmas period - notorious for featuring an increase in domestic violence and suicide - occurs during winter is a factor. One thing is for sure - it sure doesn't provide meaningful support for your contentions.
[ 03. January 2014, 21:32: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Mudfrog
Here you are
Jengie
That paper says nothing about why there are more deaths in winter. It certainly isn't proof that all the extra deaths during those months are due to an inability to heat their homes.
Maybe people fall over more in winter, because of all the ice. Maybe there are more car crashes for the same reason. Maybe the fact that the Christmas period - notorious for featuring an increase in domestic violence and suicide - occurs during winter is a factor. One thing is for sure - it sure doesn't provide meaningful support for your contentions.
Try looking at fig 4 to begin, then move on to table 1
[actually your injuries are on there]
[ 03. January 2014, 21:34: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
From the Causes of winter mortality:
quote:
Although EWM is associated with low temperatures, conditions directly relating to cold, such as hypothermia, are not the main cause of excess winter mortality. The majority of additional winter deaths are caused by cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease and respiratory diseases
quote:
Previous research has shown that although mortality does increase as it gets colder, temperature only explains a small amount of the variance in winter mortality, and high levels of excess winter mortality can occur during relatively mild winters
So, it's simply proven, or even alleged by the statistics, that people die because they are frightened to heat their homes.
[ 03. January 2014, 21:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[qb]So since humans can't create the Kingdom of Heaven, there's no need to do anything about Hellish conditions on Earth? I don't buy that. To paraphrase Teresa of Avila, God has no hands but ours to do God's work. Sometimes our hands get together to do God's work in churches or governments or charities, sometimes we work as individuals. There's never a single perfect solution, but multiple approaches can add up to a positive change.
It's all too easy to throw one's hands up and say that since we're all fallen humans, life will always be crap. It's a nice, lazy way to blame God for all our miseries, duck any responsibility to alleviate the misery that we ourselves cause, and cynically undermine any effort to not cause it in the first place.
Our societies have limited interests in disadvantaged people. We are more interested in war, profit and control. Christians need to be very careful about putting a few drops of perfume into the cesspond and thinking it is God's work. The tension is whether Christianity should stand with society or apart from it. In my jaded middle age , I have revised my youthful opinion.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Huh
Wonder how cynical I'll be when I'm your age?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
People in the UK have died because they couldn't afford to heat their houses.
I would like to see the evidence for this - that someone literally froze to death because the heating was no on because they had no choice.
Let's not forget that every pensioner gets a £200 tax free fuel allowance to pay for their heating - £300 if you're over 80 - and on top of that, if the temperature dips below 0 degrees for 7 days you get an extra £25 for that 7 day period.
AFAIAA no one is allowed to have their heating cut off by the energy companies for non-payment of fuel bills.
It seems to me that if anyone is turning their heating off it's out of ignorance of the circumstances and irrational fear of inability to pay.
Many people who have to choose between heating and eating are not eligible for the winter fuel allowance due to their age - but still have to pay the same bills. A lot of people in fuel poverty are on metered fuel so wouldn't be cut off, but cannot afford to top the meter up. It is also more expensive to use a meter than have bills because people can often get better deals for using direct debits.
When I was living in a hostel for vulnerable young people, I regularly had no heating at all because our only heaters were electric storage heaters which are expensive to run, and could only pay via a meter.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From the Causes of winter mortality:
quote:
Although EWM is associated with low temperatures, conditions directly relating to cold, such as hypothermia, are not the main cause of excess winter mortality. The majority of additional winter deaths are caused by cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease and respiratory diseases
quote:
Previous research has shown that although mortality does increase as it gets colder, temperature only explains a small amount of the variance in winter mortality, and high levels of excess winter mortality can occur during relatively mild winters
So, it's simply proven, or even alleged by the statistics, that people die because they are frightened to heat their homes.
Or because they are ineligible for help with heating bills due to being too young. Or live in houses with insufficient heating equipment and unscrupulous landlords. Or because they have to use a meter and cannot afford to top it up (very common). Or because they live hand to mouth and cannot save, and an unexpected bill has meant choosing between heating and eating. Or because they are vulnerable to bullying by energy companies and are not properly made aware of their rights, eg it's illegal to cut off heating if there are young children in the house but energy companies will still harass the occupants. I am surprised that a SA officer, who must have a lot of contact with vulnerable people, is so unaware of the reality of fuel poverty.
I see a distinct lack of joined-up thinking, between people's suffering and the government policies which cause or contribute towards that suffering. This is not aimed at the SA specifically - heaven knows the CoE needs to be louder regarding this - but it does puzzle me as to why those on the front line of the reality of poverty are not more condemnatory of those policies which cause or exacerbate poverty. Why is it just the Pope saying these things, and where are the other churches?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Ah Jade, now you move onto a subject I agree with you upon. We have, of course, been discussing the elderly and the allegation that they die of cold in the winter due to the 'fact' that they can't afford to heat their homes despite the £200 or £300 tax free handout to do just that...
But if you want to change the subject to fuel poverty in general then I'm happy to do that
I agree that one of the first things that should happen is that metered gas and electricity should be as cheap to buy as the fuel paid for by direct debit. The reason for that is quite simple - people on fortnightly benefits cannot set up a monthly direct debit. It's not fair that they are forced to pay higher prices.
You have no argument from me on that one - and yes, I do see fuel poverty.
One of our African refugees has just asked her fuel provider to change her onto metered fuel because she doesn't like receiving a bill every quarter. She is on benefits and she will now pay a slightly higher rate but at least, she says, she will know where she stands and not be surprised by a big bill at the end of the winter quarter.
I;'m not quite sure what the answer is to be honest - we can't go down the road of reducing retail prices for products for people under a certain income level - we don't sell cornflakes or t-shirts at a different price for you at the same shop just because you're on benefits - so I don't know what should happen other than to ensure that people can switch to cheaper tariffs and for landlords to be forced to insulate the houses and flats that low income tenants rent from them.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Making it compulsory for landlords to agree to insulation being installed would help. Currently people receiving a range of benefits can get free or subsidised insulation to their rented property but they need the permission of their landlord. Making it illegal to withhold that permission without good cause would help a lot.
I also think better regulation of fuel prices would help. There should be an personal energy budget distributed between petrol, gas and electricity. Raise duty on standard prices but offer a substantial discount on the first X kWh. That way if you can't afford a car you are more likely to be able to afford to heat your home. If you drive long distances in a polluting car and have a large house and keep leaving things running then you will pay through the nose.
Those of you supporting those using pre-payment meters may find it helpful to direct them to EBico - they don't have a standing charge and charge all customers the same. It won't help people on coin meters, but card meters it can save a fair amount over some other suppliers.
As for the winter fuel allowance, that might last a month of heating an old house to a suitable temperature for an elderly person. Certainly to heat our house to a comfortable temperature (and we don't get cold weather here) costs over £150 a month. Consequently we do without for much of the winter. An elderly person is likely to need higher temperatures for longer periods, and the costs will be astronomical.
[ 04. January 2014, 08:10: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Changes to VAT on food and other essentials would help a lot - VAT is charged on sanitary protection for instance which is ludicrous given that they're quite clearly essential, and are really expensive. VAT being a flat-rate tax has an enormous impact on poor people - poor people will always pay a bigger proportion of their income, and on things which they have no choice but to buy. It's an inherently unfair tax. It also shows how unfair the 'non-taxpayer' stigma against benefit recipients is - they may not pay income tax but they are certainly taxed in other ways. Students also do not pay income tax, but do not encounter such stigma.
The price of fuel generally is extremely worrying, even for those who can afford it. Given the essential nature of fuel, energy providers need much closer scrutiny and legislation. Just as supermarkets have strict standards by which they must comply as well as farmers and other food suppliers, energy companies need as much scrutiny as those who create energy and energy sources.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Making it compulsory for landlords to agree to insulation being installed would help. Currently people receiving a range of benefits can get free or subsidised insulation to their rented property but they need the permission of their landlord. Making it illegal to withhold that permission without good cause would help a lot.
I also think better regulation of fuel prices would help. There should be an personal energy budget distributed between petrol, gas and electricity. Raise duty on standard prices but offer a substantial discount on the first X kWh. That way if you can't afford a car you are more likely to be able to afford to heat your home. If you drive long distances in a polluting car and have a large house and keep leaving things running then you will pay through the nose.
Those of you supporting those using pre-payment meters may find it helpful to direct them to EBico - they don't have a standing charge and charge all customers the same. It won't help people on coin meters, but card meters it can save a fair amount over some other suppliers.
As for the winter fuel allowance, that might last a month of heating an old house to a suitable temperature for an elderly person. Certainly to heat our house to a comfortable temperature (and we don't get cold weather here) costs over £150 a month. Consequently we do without for much of the winter. An elderly person is likely to need higher temperatures for longer periods, and the costs will be astronomical.
One of my main problems when I was in a hostel was not being able to change energy supplier (and you know, those incredibly annoying energy-guzziling electric heaters!). Obviously that's quite a small proportion of all consumers, but I'm wondering if there are any people in council houses who also can't switch? Not sure if it would also be different in England to in the rest of the UK.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Changes to VAT on food and other essentials would help a lot
Erm...you are obviously oblivious to the fact that there is no VAT on food and no VAT on children's clothing.
Studies show, I believe, that the greatest proportion of a low-income family's money is spent on food and children's clothing - so they are unaffected in this regard.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
One of my main problems when I was in a hostel was not being able to change energy supplier
Having been the assistant manager in a hostel for the homeless I have to ask you: what kind of a hostel were you in where you were responsible for your own heating ills? Every hostel I know abut has a flat charge that is covered by HB and a personal contribution, and covers all living costs within the hostel.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Even so, Mudfrog, the poor often don't have access to the cheapest and/or most nutritious food. I think I read a study about that a while ago, and there was something in the paper the other day about the lack of access to a free cashpoint for many people.
Whilst it might be conceivable to buy low cost food, if you don't have a car (and other troubles in your life), the expensive local shop might be the only alternative.
I've also met people who say that they have no way to cook food, so have to eat more expensive cooked food (which will have VAT added).
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Also it isn't just people who are on benefits who experience poverty and problems paying fuel bills, of course. Many people struggle on low pay, many are renting poor quality housing, which is expensive to heat and have to pay for power using card meters.
The idea, which is increasingly thrown around, that there are 'worthy' and 'unworthy' poor people seems to both hide the complexities of individual circumstances and allow others to make sweeping moral judgements upon people based on simple projection of their pseudo-Victorian values.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Changes to VAT on food and other essentials would help a lot
Erm...you are obviously oblivious to the fact that there is no VAT on food and no VAT on children's clothing.
Studies show, I believe, that the greatest proportion of a low-income family's money is spent on food and children's clothing - so they are unaffected in this regard.
Actually not all food has zero VAT - full VAT is charged on food and drink including nuts, dried fruit, fruit juice and squash and cereal bars.
Full VAT is also charged on all vitamins and supplements.
In answer to your question re the hostel I was in, I was in a Stonham hostel specifically for 16-25yos. I had to pay for my own electricity on top of my rent (which was not entirely covered by Housing Benefit). At the time I was on either Income Support or income-based Jobseekers Allowance, around £50 a week (under 25s are paid a lower rate). I spent about £10 a week on electricity for lighting and cooking. I could rarely afford heating.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I remember seeing a study in Glasgow which showed that people in Easterhouse (notoriously run-down area) were paying far more for their food than people in the affluent West End of the city.
Because they had less transport options and less choice they were paying more for a far less varied diet.
It isn't purely about economic poverty but a whole range of other issues too. Sure, education comes into it but you could have gone in all goody-two-shoes and shown people in Easterhouse how to cook simple, nutritious meals and so on - but to no avail as the kind of fresh ingredients they'd require weren't available to them locally.
Sure, there are cultural reasons too - a whole range of issues.
But Hatless is right, having more money gives you more power and more choice. The converse is true. Less income, less choice - and often at higher prices.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
On that score, there are also neurochemical issues to do with stress and impulse control that make eating a decent diet much harder if you're on a low income. Poverty is multi-dimensional and each problem makes the others harder to deal with.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also, those who have specialist dietary needs usually have to spend more - I have IBS and unfortunately cannot have pulses or oats because of that, so that's two cheap staple foods I can't eat. Dairy-free milk alternatives are more expensive than the cheapest dairy milk (and are less easy to find in an area with limited shopping options). Some things like some gluten-free products are available on prescription, but not all specialist dietary products are available on prescription.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
No such dietary prescriptions exist in Canada. It is simply an additional expense. With the disintegration of Medicare at the behest of gov'ts beholden to neo-con and neo-lib economic policies, we no longer have prescription drug coverage, dental for anyone, eye care, and things like plaster casts, crutches are billed to the patient. Elderly who fall call the fire department and call a taxicab versus user pay ambulances which start at $250 plus mileage. Our societies are richer and the rich are richer. The most needy are needier.
The progress for support has been negative.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
My husband and I both grew up in poverty. We are fortunate to no longer be there and we now live on the margins in one of the wealthiest areas in the world so that our children can benefit from the educational and other opportunities. Our siblings and their children still live in poverty despite the fact that they are very hard working people who have faced unexpected job loss in the past few years, lack of mobility due to poor educational opportunities or an unexpected illness that has wrecked finances.
Comparing my childhood to the lives of the affluent children my children go to school with and with my nieces and nephews still in poverty, it is the lack of opportunity for lower class children that angers me most. They attend substandard schools, in aging unsafe facilities, have no access to AP classes, their parents cannot afford enrichment (it costs extra to do school sports, drama, debate...any extracurriculars), they have less chance to develop a gift or pursue a passion (whether it be sports, or music, or art), their schools offer little or no foreign language, the have a disproportionate amount of special needs students but no additional funding, the schools deal with kids facing food insecurity, homelessness and violence and can only offer piecemeal remedies. My nieces and nephews are not prepared to go to college, they have no advisement or encouragement and believe it is out of their reach. They are not even taught basic skills. In the English class my niece had in 9th grade the teacher decided just to show the children movies of books on a reading list instead of having them read the books. I was shocked. I have a nephew who graduated high school but is so illiterate he cannot read the check list required for his construction job. The parents work multiple jobs, are too exhausted to fight it.
If you want to do something about poverty then you have to prepare children to succeed and move out of poverty. You have to educate and support them. You have to give them hope. In this country it's not that the wealthy get more its that the poor don't even get basics; living wage, decent education, basic healthcare, adequate nutrition. I keep hearing how we have "free education" but if it's just warehousing and teaching to a standardized test then it is not education, certainly not what they'll need to contribute to a 21st century society.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
You know something? My parents divorced when I was 8 and plunged me, my mother and sister into homelessness and poverty. We had to move to a seaside town and live in my grandmother's boarding house. 3 years later and still in poverty - though by now we had a tiny terraced house - I went to one of the most prestigious boys' schools in the town. Most of the boys were the sons of lawyers, businessmen, diplomats, military personnel, etc, etc.
I was awarded this most privileged opportunity by the Conservative Government at the time (1973) that ran a direct grant scheme where anyone, regardless of income of class who passed the 11+ could go, free of charge, to this normally fee-paying school.
My years there saw my family remaining in poverty.
Sadly, a labour government took over in the mid 70s and scrapped the direct grant scheme. This meant that my sister who was 5 years younger than me was denied the opportunity and, although she was intelligent enough, was unable to go to my school.
After Mrs Thatcher came to power a similar scheme to give children from poor backgrounds the opportunity to go to public school was reintroduced but it was too late for my sister.
I need to clarify that even those who paid to go to tis school had to pass the entrance exam and so it wasn't a case of poor intelligent kids going to a school where thick rich kids went. The entrance requirement was the same, but the opportunity was given by a Tory government but was stripped away by a Labour government.
Who denies opportunities to the poor?
Who stops people from a lower class getting a good education?
Socialists.
Bring back grammar schools and direct grants and you'll get poor kids given huge opportunities that were always denied under labour.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
So how many kids got that opportunity, Mudfrog? Labour governments abolished the free private school places for the few in favour of increasing funding to give everyone a decent education. As someone who grew up without a lot of money around (not poverty but well below average household income) I'm very glad about that. It meant that I had the same opportunities as pretty much anyone else. I went to an excellent comprehensive school, along with the kids of doctors and army officers, children of single parents, kids who lived on council estates, factory workers. There were 3 good comprehensives in the town and little to choose between them. I got 11 good GCSEs including 3 sciences and a foreign language and went on to FE college to do 4 A-Levels, again choosing between 2 excellent FE colleges and 2 good school 6th forms in nearby towns.
There were no grammar schools, few people bothered with the one local private school (usually it was a last resort for the thuggish children of wealthy parents who thought they could get away with bullying at the state schools).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Anyone who passed the 11+ could go to my school. My friend in 6th form was also poor and from a single family. I had free school dinners we were so poor.
My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There were no grammar schools, few people bothered with the one local private school (usually it was a last resort for the thuggish children of wealthy parents who thought they could get away with bullying at the state schools).
You see, that is merely a prejudiced comment with no basis in fact. I got to my school, as did others, by passing the 11+. Anyone else who wanted to go there had to pass the entrance exam. You could not go there just because your parents were rich, you had to merit a place - and that was an opportunity given to all classes and all levels of income.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Bring back grammar schools and direct grants and you'll get poor kids given huge opportunities that were always denied under labour. ...
... My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years. ...
How does choosing one or two kids from a school that is "consistently bad" help all the other children who have had to go to that school over those 40 years? A goodie for a select few isn't social justice or an educational policy, it's tokenism. Rather than sending a lucky few poor kids to a school for toffs, why not support the "bad" school and give all the kids, rich or poor, the best education possible?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Bring back grammar schools and direct grants and you'll get poor kids given huge opportunities that were always denied under labour. ...
... My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years. ...
How does choosing one or two kids from a school that is "consistently bad" help all the other children who have had to go to that school over those 40 years? A goodie for a select few isn't social justice or an educational policy, it's tokenism. Rather than sending a lucky few poor kids to a school for toffs, why not support the "bad" school and give all the kids, rich or poor, the best education possible?
What was lucky about me passing my 11+?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Mudfrog, I also passed my 11+ to go to what was the local grammar school, one of 6 from my school year of 24. My primary school kept the Eleven plus for as long as possible because we lived in the feeder area for what had been the local secondary modern (where failed students went) and that was not a good school.
The secondary school I attended was an amalgamation of the secondary modern and grammar school in that town - they happened to be next to each other and meant we had good facilities to teach a range of subjects, with a sixth form and ex-grammar school teachers as well as secondary modern school teachers. It met the needs of children in a wide catchment area reasonably well, and the science and maths teaching was better than that of the girls' public (private) schools in that area. I know because I passed the scholarship to get to them too and was taken around them all to check out facilities.
Now if the money providing direct grant places had been put into improving the once secondary modern, don't you think more students would have benefited, rather than just the handful that took up the direct grant places?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
All children deserve a good education, whether they could pass the 11+ (or a modern equivalent) or not. I went to a normal comprehensive in Coventry between 2000 and 2005 and had an excellent education, and most of my peers went to university. I don't see any evidence that children had less opportunity under Labour. The Tory decision to scrap EMA is certainly evidence that poorer young people matter less to them and it's had a hugely detrimental impact, especially young people who are more likely to drop out of education, eg those in foster care or institutions/hostels.
The solution to giving poorer young people opportunities isn't to send a lucky few to private schools - that takes money out of the state school system and so disadvantages other pupils. The solution is to improve the state system so that private education is no longer necessary and so the money that would be spent there can be put into the state system. Education is the right of all, not the privilege of a few.
Also confusing a Labour government with a socialist one shows a distinct lack of political understanding!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You see, that is merely a prejudiced comment with no basis in fact. I got to my school, as did others, by passing the 11+. Anyone else who wanted to go there had to pass the entrance exam. You could not go there just because your parents were rich, you had to merit a place - and that was an opportunity given to all classes and all levels of income.
That may have been true of the school you went to, but the private school in my town did not have an entrance exam and I knew people who jumped to it before getting permanently excluded from the state system. It's not prejudice when I've seen it happen. How you feel able to make pronouncements about a school you know nothing about I'm not sure.
The existence of selective schools tends to make other schools around them worse, that's pretty much a given.
In any case, in the example you give, would you deny that places were easier to get if you could pay the fees? They may not only have been available to the wealthy (and, frankly, quite a lot of private schools offer some scholarships) but I'd be extremely surprised if places were offered on a "means blind" basis.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
Coincidence?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
Coincidence?
Almost certainly. The fall in wages for manual workers, coupled with reductions in unemployment benefits and soaring pay for the wealthiest, with lower tax rates and deregulation have a lot more to do with it. The clue is that the US never had grammar schools and still experienced the same decline in social mobility. Scandinavian countries didn't lower tax rates and don't have the same social mobility issues.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The fall in wages for manual workers, coupled with reductions in unemployment benefits and soaring pay for the wealthiest, with lower tax rates and deregulation have a lot more to do with it.
How are you defining social mobility? I'm thinking in terms of type of employment, which is the way socio-economic groups are defined in the UK.
Social mobility is when the grandson of a casual farm labourer can become a Higher Education professional. Higher incomes are a result of social mobility, not a driver of it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How are you defining social mobility? I'm thinking in terms of type of employment, which is the way socio-economic groups are defined in the UK.
Social mobility is when the grandson of a casual farm labourer can become a Higher Education professional. Higher incomes are a result of social mobility, not a driver of it.
We agree on the definition, but actually there is strong evidence that economic equality is closely linked to social mobility - the more unequal a society is the less socially mobile it will be. If memory serves it is theorised that this is partly because in an unequal society the experiences of the wealthy are so far removed from those of the poor that there is a huge cultural difference to be overcome, and wealth disparities make it easier to buy advantage through extra tutoring (including coaching to pass school entrance exams, it's worth mentioning) or extra curricular activities that look good on a UCAS application.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyone who passed the 11+ could go to my school. My friend in 6th form was also poor and from a single family. I had free school dinners we were so poor.
My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years.
Now there could be something interesting hidden in those paragraphs. That the results of the 11+ were deliberately skewed so that girls who had results equal to those of boys who went to the grammar schools didn't. This was because of two unfortunate circumstances. Girls tended to have higher scores, so more girls would, without the "correction" have passed. Secondly, there could be, in some areas, fewer places for girls than for boys.
It isn't entirely true, therefore, that anyone who passed the 11+ could go to grammar school. Unless you factor in the "correction" that meant that the "pass" mark for girls was higher than for boys.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Follow up - that was in the past, at the introduction of the 11+. I don't know when it was abandoned.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It isn't entirely true, therefore, that anyone who passed the 11+ could go to grammar school. Unless you factor in the "correction" that meant that the "pass" mark for girls was higher than for boys.
You also need to factor in that different local authorities had different numbers of places in Grammar schools.
Welsh authorites tended to have 25% of kids go to grammars.
Some English LEAs only 15%.
Where more passed the 11+ than there were places, interviews were held to do a final selection.
Re- social mobility, standards were improved when selection were abolished. only 75% of the creamed off 20% got 5 or more O' levels.
In comps. 66% from the whole ability range are expected to get the equivalent of 5 O' levels - or you fail your OFSTED.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I don't think it's helpful to get into the GCSEs vs O-Levels debate, leo. They're not directly equivalent.
What is interesting is to consider whether the impact of the GCSE has been to bring about the expectation that everyone should have qualifications. Someone leaving school at 16 with nothing on paper will be looked at by employers far less favourably than they would 30-40 years ago. The decisions you make about how to approach your education have far greater impact now than they did in the past. There aren't the same well paid manual jobs that people can move into. There aren't the same opportunities for evening classes that there once were (I worked in FE a couple of years ago and there were people in work who wanted to take A-Levels but we didn't have the funding to put on evening classes in most circumstances - it stopped at GCSE). If I had to generalise, I'd say that more people have more of an opportunity to succeed academically first time around, but far less room to fail at school and pick up the pieces later. I don't think we'll see many Prescotts, Majors or Bransons in public life in 20-30 years time.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And the OU's got more expensive of late. I was thinking of adding to my existing degree until I saw the cost.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re- social mobility, standards were improved when selection were abolished.
Social mobility is about employment, not qualifications.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And the OU's got more expensive of late.
Of course it has. Government funding has reduced to ALL universities, meaning they have to make up the difference through fees.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
[citation needed]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
[citation needed]
It was also a period of (much) higher direct taxation, the introduction of the welfare state and NHS, tightly controlled mortgage availability and extensively available social housing. Moreover grammar schools benefitted c 10% of the 11+ cohort, so where did the improved social mobility for the remaining 90% come from?
Correlation is not, necessarily, causation.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And the OU's got more expensive of late.
Of course it has. Government funding has reduced to ALL universities, meaning they have to make up the difference through fees.
Well it wasn't free first time round.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyone who passed the 11+ could go to my school. My friend in 6th form was also poor and from a single family. I had free school dinners we were so poor.
My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years.
Now there could be something interesting hidden in those paragraphs. That the results of the 11+ were deliberately skewed so that girls who had results equal to those of boys who went to the grammar schools didn't. This was because of two unfortunate circumstances. Girls tended to have higher scores, so more girls would, without the "correction" have passed. Secondly, there could be, in some areas, fewer places for girls than for boys.
It isn't entirely true, therefore, that anyone who passed the 11+ could go to grammar school. Unless you factor in the "correction" that meant that the "pass" mark for girls was higher than for boys.
No no no. My sister went to the other school simply because the direct grant scheme had been abolished.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
There is an interesting situation in the public schools in Washington, D. C.
They are all charter schools, which means that each school can develop its own curriculum. (I assume that all schools are required to teach basic literacy, etc.) No entrance exams are permitted for any of these schools. If there are more applicants than places, there is a lottery.
My grandson attends a school which is bilingual--Mandarin and English. One day all the classes are in Mandarin; the next day they are all in English.
He is receiving a far better education than most children in the District, but the city pays no more for his education than for that of any other child. I have somewhat ambivalent feelings about this. I am delighted that he is receiving such an excellent education, but I wonder if it will give him an unfair advantage. On the other hand, many children in the District would not benefit from this type of education.
Moo
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... How does choosing one or two kids from a school that is "consistently bad" help all the other children who have had to go to that school over those 40 years? A goodie for a select few isn't social justice or an educational policy, it's tokenism. Rather than sending a lucky few poor kids to a school for toffs, why not support the "bad" school and give all the kids, rich or poor, the best education possible?
What was lucky about me passing my 11+? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Did every single kid who passed the exam go to the fancy school? Would there have been space if they had all wanted to go? No? Then you were lucky.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Besides, you were indeed lucky to be born with the necessary type of brain to pass the 11+. Not everyone is that lucky.
In a parallel universe somewhere, there's a Mudfrog who is complaining that whilst he benefitted from the 11+, his sister, a little less academic, was branded a failure at 11 and sent to the local secondary modern. Then he'd be cursing the elitist 11+ rather than the wicked socialists.
Interestingly, everyone I know who lauds the grammar school system was one of the small percentage who were lucky enough to be able to meet the requirements. I meet far fewer fans who went to the secondary modern. And I laugh when I hear talk of "choosing a grammar school education for my children." Sorry - grammar schools chose you. Or more often, didn't.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think it's helpful to get into the GCSEs vs O-Levels debate, leo. They're not directly equivalent.
Except that when comps started, GCE and CSE were run alongside each other and the improvement in numbers getting 5 + O'levels increased.
If grammar schools lifted SOME out of their social mileu, comps lifted ALL to some extent.
[ 06. January 2014, 14:44: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Seems to me that unless you live on less than a dollar a day you ain't poor. The starving Africans are really poor.
Westeners are not poor. Sorry. You might have less material goods than some other western people and have services of a lower quality, but you are NOT poor.
Also, some kids are just thicker than others. Some kids bully kids who are cleverer than they are. Some kids are much brighter and really need to be separated out to give them the best opportunity to do the best they can.
The ones who are remaining should be given the best opportunity we can afford to get better results, or to learn non-academic subjects. Some will still reject this and not want to work.
The ones who don't want to work and reject schooling can compete with immigrant Rumanians for work in hand-car washes.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think it's helpful to get into the GCSEs vs O-Levels debate, leo. They're not directly equivalent.
Except that when comps started, GCE and CSE were run alongside each other and the improvement in numbers getting 5 + O'levels increased.
If grammar schools lifted SOME out of their social mileu, comps lifted ALL to some extent.
What? Where? The comps took the children of the working classes and churned out the underclass!
Some lucky ones (like me) managed to get away from it, and there ain't no way my kids are going to be subject to that meat-grinder. I am a sharp-elbowed parent and wear that as a badge of pride.
Also, Karl, no, not everyone is clever, but those who are should be pushed as far as they can get.
We'll always have low-brained kids to fill up the bulk of hot, heavy or boring jobs, but we need clever people to be the future doctors, scientists and engineers. The Chinese are knocking on the door and we need to keep up.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Seems to me that unless you live on less than a dollar a day you ain't poor. The starving Africans are really poor.
Westeners are not poor. Sorry. You might have less material goods than some other western people and have services of a lower quality, but you are NOT poor.
If you can't afford a roof over your head, put food on the table or heat your living space, you're poor. The dollar a day thing isn't even a measure of absolute poverty: pretending that 75p a day would get you anything in the west is kind of dumb.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Grrr ...
I went to a comprehensive school, Deano. I went on to university and I got a first class honours degree.
So I'm part of the underclass, am I?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Of course we can push the cleverer ones Deano, but there's no reason on earth we have to do that by telling the other 90% they're thick and hiving them off to a crappy school so we can concentrate on the clever ones - aka the 11+/grammar/secondary modern system.
Besides anything else, it's too blunt an instrument. I was very good at maths and science but severely challenged - shall we say - in languages and humanities. Being stuck in a top stream because of my maths and science abilities meant I really fell behind in language classes where I couldn't keep up. Grammar/Secondary Modern selection is that very problem writ large. By all means set, but do it in an environment where all children have access to classes at their level in a given subject.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Oh, and I know all about Pathways Karl, being as how they were in my Chruch's parish until last year. I supported it as much as possible, but...
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
[ 06. January 2014, 15:28: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
What is this? An "I know poorer people than you" competion? They're poor; some people in Africa are even poorer.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Grrr ...
I went to a comprehensive school, Deano. I went on to university and I got a first class honours degree.
So I'm part of the underclass, am I?
Like I said, if you had read properly, some of us were lucky to get out of it. I also went to a comprehensive and managed to go to university where I got an upper second.
But you and I and a few others were the exceptions not the rule.
Most kids who went to secondaries and comps didn't do anything like that.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
What is this? An "I know poorer people than you" competion? They're poor; some people in Africa are even poorer.
Because the majority of the debate seems to focus on "Western Poor" which masks real poverty. That's the true tragedy, and neither left nor right has the will to fix that.
On this subject, both wings of politics are bankrupt. But there is only one way to fix it if the will is there, and that is how we have rich "poor" poeple in the west. Trade, education, peace and stable, non-corruptable governments.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I sent my kids to comprehensive school too, Deano.
So what is it I 'got out of' exactly?
I'll concede that where I live now is 'posher' than where I grew up ... but it wasn't that rough. It's probably rougher now than it was then, mind.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Like I said, if you had read properly, some of us were lucky to get out of it. I also went to a comprehensive and managed to go to university where I got an upper second.
But you and I and a few others were the exceptions not the rule.
Most kids who went to secondaries and comps didn't do anything like that.
I went to a comp. I ended up with a doctorate. My brother went to the same comp. So did he. The majority of the people I shared a sixth form with went to university.
My kids go to the local comp. They're both intending to go to university. My daughter is thinking seriously of Cambridge. Pretty much all of the Y11 top set (and that's three separate classes) are already choosing their A level subjects.
How many 'lucky ones' do you have to hear about to realise that getting a decent bunch of O's and A's and going on to higher education from a comprehensive isn't like looking for hen's teeth?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Grrr ...
I went to a comprehensive school, Deano. I went on to university and I got a first class honours degree.
So I'm part of the underclass, am I?
Like I said, if you had read properly, some of us were lucky to get out of it. I also went to a comprehensive and managed to go to university where I got an upper second.
But you and I and a few others were the exceptions not the rule.
Most kids who went to secondaries and comps didn't do anything like that.
I went to a comprehensive and most of my peers went to university. The biggest obstacle to those who went to comprehensives getting into university has been the classism of universities, not the inherent stupidity of comprehensive school students.
In any case, not going to university doesn't equal a lack of intelligence and plenty of wealthy people who went to private schools are stupid. Vocational study and work that doesn't require a degree requires as much intelligence as 'professional' jobs.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
I think that because we are on a forum that is for discussing religion, most of us will be educated to a better standard than most.
Shall we go to a betting site forum and do a similar poll there?
But in the end what matters is that children who are very bright should be pushed to do as well as they can and if that means they get more resources and better teachers than those less bright then so be it.
Why should the brightest be held back? Why should they be made to remain down at the level of the average?
We need the brightest. There will always be plenty of the rest.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
I think that because we are on a forum that is for discussing religion, most of us will be educated to a better standard than most.
Shall we go to a betting site forum and do a similar poll there?
But in the end what matters is that children who are very bright should be pushed to do as well as they can and if that means they get more resources and better teachers than those less bright then so be it.
Why should the brightest be held back? Why should they be made to remain down at the level of the average?
We need the brightest. There will always be plenty of the rest.
We need *everyone*. Surely that is a rather more Christian attitude than elitism?
Also, less well-educated people can be religious too....
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
What is this? An "I know poorer people than you" competion? They're poor; some people in Africa are even poorer.
Because the majority of the debate seems to focus on "Western Poor" which masks real poverty. That's the true tragedy, and neither left nor right has the will to fix that.
On this subject, both wings of politics are bankrupt. But there is only one way to fix it if the will is there, and that is how we have rich "poor" poeple in the west. Trade, education, peace and stable, non-corruptable governments.
fwiw, I have worked with the poor in West Africa, and I have worked with the poor here in Southern California. Rather than saying one is poor and the other is "wealthy poor" I would say rather the face of poverty is different in the two places-- both in the causes and the implications.
In both cases, the causes are complex as is the solutions (as noted in Sach's research cited above). But speaking quite generally, in Africa, poverty is is about lack of resources. In America (can't really speak for the UK) it is about a lack of community. Homelessness in the US looks quite different from homelessness in Africa. But, on an individual level, it plays out in very similar ways. There are people starving in Africa, there are also people starving a few blocks from my house. There are parents giving up their children just to be sure they'll be fed in Africa, and there are parents doing the same here in the US. I am called to care for both. I cannot walk over the 3000 to 10000 (according to last census) homeless that are literally on my doorstep because there are millions in Africa. I must care for both.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
We're perilously close to a "one true Scotsman" fallacy here.
Sure, lots of people who went to comprehensives didn't go to university. But given that the majority of those who did, did so in places where there was no grammar school alternative, got a perfectly decent education that enabled them to move on in life - and still do - accepting that comprehensives give far more children access to higher education than grammars ever did would be a prudent step.
[ 06. January 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
Why on earth would most comprehensive school alumni go on to university? Less than half the population as a whole do so it's absurd to expect more than half of those at comprehensive schools to. Remind me, what proportion of pupils went on to university in the days of grammar schools everywhere?
The nature of a comprehensive school is that it caters for those who will go on to university and those who won't. The worst aspects of the comprehensive system have been when it has tried to improve outcomes by forcing everyone into the academic route. If my school had a failing, it was that too many of my fellow students were taking history and French, and likely to gets Es and Fs, rather than having the opportunity to do extra technology qualifications and build up a better practical skillset. Nonetheless, despite a comprehensive intake, my year group topped 70% getting 5A*-C grades when the national average was hovering around 50%, beating out the local private school by some margin.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The nature of a comprehensive school is that it caters for those who will go on to university and those who won't. The worst aspects of the comprehensive system have been when it has tried to improve outcomes by forcing everyone into the academic route. If my school had a failing, it was that too many of my fellow students were taking history and French, and likely to gets Es and Fs, rather than having the opportunity to do extra technology qualifications and build up a better practical skillset.
Almost. I don’t think teachers in many, if not most of the UK’s comprehensive schools actually focus on catering to those who will go onto university.
I’m sorry but I believe most teachers want a decent pay for a decent days work, and that is aiming for the average. They want to get the most c’s and B’s because that’s where their pay structure and job security lies. They don’t push the brightest, they focus on the majority.
Not all schools, and I sharp-elbowed my kids into the best performing comprehensive in Derbyshire, outside of the catchment in Chesterfield because it is a school that is proud of its academic achievement and DOES push the brightest. There are many schools across the UK like that but far too few.
But on your second point I fully agree with you. MOST kids can attain a reasonable academic grade and will go on to achieve mediocre A levels which will get them into a “modern” university such as the University of Central England; also known as UCE, which coincidentally are the A level grades you need to get there.
But those kids will go into insurance and call centre work, or something administrative.
I think the kids who won’t go on to academic success at comprehensive school level should be given the opportunity to learn a trade such as plumbing, brick-laying or hairdressing. That way they might get a job after leaving school.
Why force kids into academic subjects when they can’t cope with them? It’s both silly and cruel.
Until we get rid of this attitude that all kids can be rocket scientists then we will never let kids be what they want to be.
Jesus! That last sentence is almost Marxist! I’m off to take drugs and watch porn until I come back to reality.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
But all children are important. The aspirations of those who are less academic are just as important as those of the academic - and many non-academic children attend private schools and come from privileged backgrounds. I'd say Prince Harry is a good example of that. Wouldn't he have been happier if he hadn't had to do A Levels? Why the assumption that less academic = poor?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There are several fallacies existing on this thread. One is conflating intelligence with ability. Two is that intelligence is a bucket from which we can dip to fill whatever ability we need. And that the more we have in the bucket, the more ability we will have.
Abilities vary greatly. Great ability in one area does not confer ability in any other area.
A third is that ability will find its level regardless of circumstance.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Almost. I don’t think teachers in many, if not most of the UK’s comprehensive schools actually focus on catering to those who will go onto university.
I’m sorry but I believe most teachers want a decent pay for a decent days work, and that is aiming for the average. They want to get the most c’s and B’s because that’s where their pay structure and job security lies. They don’t push the brightest, they focus on the majority.
Not all schools, and I sharp-elbowed my kids into the best performing comprehensive in Derbyshire, outside of the catchment in Chesterfield because it is a school that is proud of its academic achievement and DOES push the brightest. There are many schools across the UK like that but far too few.
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your strategy has almost certainly done nothing to improve your kids' education, assuming you believe they're brighter than average.
This is the thing. Smart kids, like you, like me, will almost always achieve, no matter what school they're in. Because we're self-motivated, read the shit out of everything including the back of the cornflakes packet, and full of wonder, the thing we really want out of school is for the other kids to leave us alone. Get the teachers on side for that, and we're made.
What brilliant teachers excel at is dragging average kids up to achieve good results. Smart kids just need aiming in the right direction. Teachers who get Thicky McClartpants to a B deserve the Nobel prize. Teachers who happen to have Brainy Whizzkid in their class don't have to do anything to earn a clutch of As and A*s.
Unless 'pushing the brightest' means they end up taking A levels at 16 and wandering like lost souls around university, unable to even buy themselves a beer - the brightest don't need pushing. They need the opportunity to sample life in all its fullness and do as many things as they want from as broad as possible selection.
And that's the pernicious thing about the drive for ever higher results. We deliberately didn't send our kids to the very academic, gets-brilliant-results, 'Christian ethos' academy I can see from my window - because we wanted them to have a life outside of school. Their friends who went are busy burning out. Sending our two to the local comp was the very best decision we could have made.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your strategy has almost certainly done nothing to improve your kids' education, assuming you believe they're brighter than average.
This is the thing. Smart kids, like you, like me, will almost always achieve, no matter what school they're in. Because we're self-motivated, read the shit out of everything including the back of the cornflakes packet, and full of wonder, the thing we really want out of school is for the other kids to leave us alone. Get the teachers on side for that, and we're made.
I'm not sure the above is really true for the majority of children in the mid quartile of academic performance. There is a percentage of children who will achieve in any situation, in my view there are a larger number who will achieve in the right circumstances and others who will never achieve academic qualifications in any circumstances.
I also think that different people develop at different rates. Some, I believe, would do very well at University, if they were able to get there, but fail at school due to the learning style. In contrast, some who do very well at school fail at University.
quote:
What brilliant teachers excel at is dragging average kids up to achieve good results. Smart kids just need aiming in the right direction. Teachers who get Thicky McClartpants to a B deserve the Nobel prize. Teachers who happen to have Brainy Whizzkid in their class don't have to do anything to earn a clutch of As and A*s.
I'm reasonably convinced that the teaching has a relatively minor impact on most children at school. I think the performance is much more related to the expectations of the children - usually from parents, but sometimes in the absence of that from the home from other adults. I believe there is a very small number of very bright students who could do well in a bad school with little expectations for their students. Most people, I think, would fail given the right situation.
quote:
Unless 'pushing the brightest' means they end up taking A levels at 16 and wandering like lost souls around university, unable to even buy themselves a beer - the brightest don't need pushing. They need the opportunity to sample life in all its fullness and do as many things as they want from as broad as possible selection.
Well it doesn't need to mean that. And I don't think 'pushing' is necessarily the correct term.
quote:
And that's the pernicious thing about the drive for ever higher results. We deliberately didn't send our kids to the very academic, gets-brilliant-results, 'Christian ethos' academy I can see from my window - because we wanted them to have a life outside of school. Their friends who went are busy burning out. Sending our two to the local comp was the very best decision we could have made.
This is the difficulties of being a parent. On the one hand, one tries to make the best possible choice of school given the options and the child. On the other hand, one can see that personal choices may actually have an impact on the wider society.
At the end of the day, I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children. But then, that does often mean that the worst schools get even worse.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm reasonably convinced that the teaching has a relatively minor impact on most children at school.
I'm reasonably convinced you're absolutely and categorically wrong, because if that's the case, we've not only wasted vast amounts of public money over the last 150 years (which is possible, but it'd be surprising that no one has pointed it out before), but also the rich, who pay over the odds for a private school education for their children, would have seen little return for their hard-earned money.
Teaching, for most children, is critical.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm reasonably convinced that the teaching has a relatively minor impact on most children at school.
I'm reasonably convinced you're absolutely and categorically wrong, because if that's the case, we've not only wasted vast amounts of public money over the last 150 years (which is possible, but it'd be surprising that no one has pointed it out before), but also the rich, who pay over the odds for a private school education for their children, would have seen little return for their hard-earned money.
Teaching, for most children, is critical.
Privately educated children very largely do better than state educated children because of parental expectation, in the opinion of many.
Of course, it helps to be in a space where there are other children who are also expected to do well.
Teaching, for most children, is not critical. Expectation is.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Privately educated children very largely do better than state educated children because of parental expectation, in the opinion of many.
Of course, it helps to be in a space where there are other children who are also expected to do well.
Teaching, for most children, is not critical. Expectation is.
If parental expectation was the major factor, then you'd expect the minority public school educated children (7%) to be overwhelmed when it comes to life outcomes by the (say) 20% of the remaining 93% who could give a rat's arse about their kids' education.
Try again.
[ 07. January 2014, 09:41: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
First of all, let's clear up a terminology issue. Most private schools in the UK are not Public Schools. There is a criteria laid down to be a Public School based on longevity and tradition, and most private schools don't meet this.
(When those on the other side of The Pond read that bit I'm sure it will confuse the hell out of them but they'll figure it out!)
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
You need good grades to get into medical school or onto a Russel Group science or engineering degree course. Those making that cut are both clever and hard working and employers recognise that.
We need to be clear about what qualifications mean to employers. The higher the qualification, the cleverer and more hard working the person. That mean the employer can entrust them with tasks that are more challenging and carry more responsability with them, and also that they will need less motivating to do a good job.
To an employer, little or no qualifications mean the person is not very bright and cannot be given challenging tasks. That's why supermarket checkouts show the teller how much change to give from a £10 note. The employer will also feel the person isn't hard working, as they didn't work hard to get any qualifications. So the employer will feel they need to impose more "management" onto them in the form of more intrusive time-keeping, more discipline, more "targets".
For a school leaver that's the stark reality of employment. Employers cannot assess them in terms of previous work experience and references, only on what qualification they may of may not have.
Of course someone who qualifies as a doctor is hard working and clever and they deserve the higher wages that go with more challenging decisions to make and more responsibility to wield. But a child who gets a top mark on a bricklaying course will be viewed as a better and more hard-working candidate by a building company than one who got a lower grade or no grade on the bricklaying course. So the employer will be more likely to consider the higher grade cadidate is more hard working and motivated.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
Actually, no. The better educated you are, the more choice you have as to how you make a living. (I have a poorly paid job (author) but am, by any fair measure, fantastically well educated - but that's my choice).
With the 'overwhelm', I was criticising pydseybare's assertion that parental encouragement was the primary driver of educational outcome. It's a driver. But access to decent teaching is critical for most. If all 7% of kids who go to private schools have highly-motivated parents (they don't, I've worked in one), then it only takes 10% of state-school kids with motivated parents to outnumber them all. There are other, more significant factors in play.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
Actually, no. The better educated you are, the more choice you have as to how you make a living. (I have a poorly paid job (author) but am, by any fair measure, fantastically well educated - but that's my choice).
With the 'overwhelm', I was criticising pydseybare's assertion that parental encouragement was the primary driver of educational outcome. It's a driver. But access to decent teaching is critical for most. If all 7% of kids who go to private schools have highly-motivated parents (they don't, I've worked in one), then it only takes 10% of state-school kids with motivated parents to outnumber them all. There are other, more significant factors in play.
Okay. I'm in agreement with you about choice. Yes better qualification give you more choice. But most people in my estimation, especially young people, exercise that choice by earning as much as possible.
At least for a while. I also took an income cut when I set up my own business. I took a risk with the house by taking a business loan secured on it. All these are choices, but I couldn't have set up the highly technical business that ultimately repaid my investment many times over, unless I attained my good education.
I think my basic premise is correct though, in that choice for your young people is about maximising income.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
deano: quote:
I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children.
I want the best for my child, of course I do. I want her to grow up in a society where she does not have to be afraid of her neighbours. A society where she can walk down the street with a reasonable degree of confidence that she will not be verbally or physically assaulted by gangs of unemployed 'youff' who left school with no qualifications and have nowhere else to go and nothing to do.
It's not enough anymore to just concentrate on educating the "brightest and best" as well as possible. We need everybody. Even the chair of CBI thinks that
businesses should invest more in training their staff. (along with paying them more... I must admit, for a brief moment after reading that news story I thought the Millennium had arrived)
Parents whose ambitions for education begin and end with their own children are not being ambitious enough. IMNSHO.
[ 07. January 2014, 11:27: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
deano: quote:
I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children.
I want the best for my child, of course I do. I want her to grow up in a society where she does not have to be afraid of her neighbours. A society where she can walk down the street with a reasonable degree of confidence that she will not be verbally or physically assaulted by gangs of unemployed 'youff' who left school with no qualifications and have nowhere else to go and nothing to do.
It's not enough anymore to just concentrate on educating the "brightest and best" as well as possible. We need everybody. Even the chair of CBI thinks that
businesses should invest more in training their staff. (along with paying them more... I must admit, for a brief moment after reading that news story I thought the Millennium had arrived)
Parents whose ambitions for education begin and end with their own children are not being ambitious enough. IMNSHO.
You wont find any arguments from me. As a "one-nation" Conservative (aka "fascist Nazi pig") I agree that we need to get rid of the so called underclass. But that SHOULD be done in the same way that it always has been done. By APPROPRIATE education targetted at the child.
Let the brightest go on to attain whatever they can because they will be needed to enable us to compete in the global economy.
Let the mass of the middle be given an appropriate education to get them to attain as much as they can. Yes, that will be a few good GCSE's in most cases. Others will be given trade-style education.
Capitalism does come down to "economic worth" I'm afraid. Is an chemical engineer worth 5 semi-skilled plant workers? Well, yes. Sorry, but just yes. The qualified Chemical Engineer is worth that by dint of their better qualification, which means they generate more wealth. The others keep the plant going, but the Chemical Engineer BUILDS the plant.
And we do operate in a capitalist world, like it or not. It isn't ever going to change, so we need to adapt to it, and that means some people - if they see school as a chore rather than an opportunity - will end up with significantly less income, and it is icome that allows the choices that Doc Tor alluded to above.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
it is income that allows the choices that Doc Tor alluded to above.
Ahem. Education allows the choices - including the choice to pick a fulfilling, low paid job: university-based research scientist, for example...
Education has one other important role, of oourse, and that's to enable the student to see through the hypocritical mass of lies and propaganda spread by the vile Tory press and their lick-spittle, toadying servants in government, and realise that the inevitability of capitalism is simply an excuse trotted out to justify the banksters helping themselves to the widow's mite.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
it is income that allows the choices that Doc Tor alluded to above.
Ahem. Education allows the choices - including the choice to pick a fulfilling, low paid job: university-based research scientist, for example...
Education has one other important role, of oourse, and that's to enable the student to see through the hypocritical mass of lies and propaganda spread by the vile Tory press and their lick-spittle, toadying servants in government, and realise that the inevitability of capitalism is simply an excuse trotted out to justify the banksters helping themselves to the widow's mite.
Oh yes, I forgot about all that.
Of course I also forgot about adding that education will also cover the failure of Miarxist regimes the world over. In history classes one presumes, as that is just about where Marxism exists nowadays. In history books.
Of course there are a few oddities around and a few fruitcakes who are still "believers", but I bet there are also people who still have black and white telly's. They are in the history books as well though.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 07. January 2014, 13:36: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is the thing. Smart kids, like you, like me, will almost always achieve, no matter what school they're in. Because we're self-motivated, read the shit out of everything including the back of the cornflakes packet, and full of wonder, the thing we really want out of school is for the other kids to leave us alone. Get the teachers on side for that, and we're made.
Motivation and intelligence are not synonymous, not completely. Though I agree with your main point, teachers make a massive difference.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Capitalism does come down to "economic worth" I'm afraid. Is an chemical engineer worth 5 semi-skilled plant workers? Well, yes. Sorry, but just yes. The qualified Chemical Engineer is worth that by dint of their better qualification, which means they generate more wealth. The others keep the plant going, but the Chemical Engineer BUILDS the plant.
Engineers do not work in isolation. And, whilst education is important, they do not step into the job with experience. This is often supplied by your unimportant, "semi-skilled" workers.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Motivation and intelligence are not synonymous, not completely. Though I agree with your main point, teachers make a massive difference.
I agree. No arguments from me on that. That's why when my kids were getting ready to enter secondary school we did the visits, and I found teh teachers at my kids school to be better than the ones at their local catchment school. Hence I gave my elbows a good fileing at got them in the better school. I agree better teachers have a massive impact. I'm not sure that paying teachers more will make them better though. "Better" is a non-financial quality. Good schools attract them.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Engineers do not work in isolation. And, whilst education is important, they do not step into the job with experience. This is often supplied by your unimportant, "semi-skilled" workers.
Talk about missing the point. Look at earnings over a working life!
A Foundation One junior doctor works as part of a team, but over twenty years the doctor will earn far more than any porters on the team. That is right and proper considering the hard-work they have had to put in coupled with the education and training they've gone through, and the decisions they have to make and the responsibility they wield.
It is a STATISTICAL fact that the higher the qualifications you start a working life with, the more you will earn over a lifetime.
I have captialised statistical in the above paragraph because of course there are exceptions and outliers in any data set.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries
What? Comprehensives ARE 'secondaries', as are grammar schools.
Presumably you mean 'secondary moderns'?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries
What? Comprehensives ARE 'secondaries', as are grammar schools.
Presumably you mean 'secondary moderns'?
Whatever the terminology. I went to "Eddie's" (Edwin Swale) in Chesterfield, which was for some reason beyond my ken renamed "The Meadows".
Maybe they thought a new, softer more pleasant name would change people's view of the school because when I was there you didn't qualify, you survived. I don't think it's as tough as it was in the late 70's and early 80's, but the new name hasn't improved academic standards, which are still god-awful.
[ 07. January 2014, 14:08: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
deano: quote:
Of course I also forgot about adding that education will also cover the failure of Miarxist [sic] regimes the world over.
So why did this guy get into so much trouble, then?
A good education teaches you to think for yourself. This is bad news for ANY ruling class, whether Marxist or capitalist.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Isn't capitalism the default system? To have a Marxist state you need a government with the will and ability to run things according to communist principles. It has to be done intentionally. It hasn't been tried in all that many places.
In any other country, as long as there are basic property laws a reasonable police force and a little infrastructure, capitalism can operate. It doesn't need government plans, it can just happen. People produce and sell, others invest and get appropriate rewards. Nothing is stopping them, so the market should be encouraging and rewarding them.
So wouldn't it be fair to say that the poverty of Bangladesh is a demonstration of the failure of capitalism? And D R Congo, Malawi, Central African Republic, etc?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
A good education teaches you to think for yourself. This is bad news for ANY ruling class, whether Marxist or capitalist.
Yep. I completely agree. 100%.
But thinking for yourself isn't a crime under capitalism. Unlike many Marxist-based regimes, where "thought-crime" is punishable with time in "re-education" camps.
I can think "This government is crap!" based on my education and knowledge. I can even say it out loud. If enough people agree with me I can even get elected to Parliament to tell the governemnt to its face just how crap it is.
Now, let's see how that would go down in Havana or Pyongyang.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Isn't capitalism the default system? To have a Marxist state you need a government with the will and ability to run things according to communist principles. It has to be done intentionally. It hasn't been tried in all that many places.
In any other country, as long as there are basic property laws a reasonable police force and a little infrastructure, capitalism can operate. It doesn't need government plans, it can just happen. People produce and sell, others invest and get appropriate rewards. Nothing is stopping them, so the market should be encouraging and rewarding them.
So wouldn't it be fair to say that the poverty of Bangladesh is a demonstration of the failure of capitalism? And D R Congo, Malawi, Central African Republic, etc?
No. Those are failures of Governments. Stable, good governments don't end up in that kind of mess. I said that upthread (you have almost paraphrased me in fact) when I said to really reduce poverty you need free-trade, an educated people, a stable non-corrupt government and bureaucracy, and peace.
Those governemnts failed to provide those basic things and so the economic successes of capitalism were never given a chance to come to fruition.
By the way and appropros of nothing, it must be terribly frustrating when the best argument Marxists have these days is "...but it's never been properly tried!" and people just don't listen to them anymore.
[ 07. January 2014, 14:29: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
By the way and appropros of nothing, it must be terribly frustrating when the best argument Marxists have these days is "...but it's never been properly tried!" and people just don't listen to them anymore.
Whereas people are all to willing to listen to "capitalism: tried and found wanting..."
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
By the way and appropros of nothing, it must be terribly frustrating when the best argument Marxists have these days is "...but it's never been properly tried!" and people just don't listen to them anymore.
Whereas people are all to willing to listen to "capitalism: tried and found wanting..."
No. People just get on with making a living rather than indulging in posture politics and claiming to have a secret way of making things much better if only it can be tried... but it never been properly tried!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One interesting argument about the 'third world' is that the 'first world' requires cheap labour in order to maintain its own standard of living. So in a way, Victorian conditions have been transferred to the garment factories of Asia, while Westerners enjoy the fruits of their labour.
However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
And the way out of that bind is the complete abolition of all immigration controls, whose main economic function is to allow large employers to segment the international labour market by trapping workers in low wage locations.
Our current system, complete freedom for capital and employers, with huge restrictions on workers, is designed to allow bosses to keep wages down.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
deano said
quote:
Those governemnts failed to provide those basic things and so the economic successes of capitalism were never given a chance to come to fruition.
That's pretty much 'it hasn't been tried properly,' isn't it? Just how fragile a flower is capitalism? How perfect do things have to be for it to work? Why haven't any of the poorer countries in Africa managed to provide the right conditions for it to flower?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Because they've been led overwhelmingly by socialists over the last half century or so?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Deano: quote:
But thinking for yourself isn't a crime under capitalism.
Only if your thoughts do not overstep the bounds of what is acceptable to the ruling classes.
What about Rosa Parks? Admittedly she was actually arrested for sitting in the wrong seat, but the reason why she sat down there was because she *thought* she had just as much right to occupy it as anyone else.
And I'm surprised you don't recognise the existence of (so-called) thought crime in Western society. Aren't you one of the people who regularly complains about Political Correctness Gone Mad? What is political correctness, if not an attempt to avoid thought crime?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I am very late to this discussion. So maybe this has already been discussed in this thread. The problem I see with traditional antipoverty efforts are:
1. They are means tested (only people who can prove they are in need get help so you need a bigger bureaucracy to test how needy people are).
2. They either disincentivise employment or pressure people into menial "workfare" jobs that make it harder for people to find jobs that will actually lift them and their families out of poverty for the long term. (The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit in the US is a notable exception.)
So people have probably discussed the guaranteed minimum income for everyone regardless of how poor or rich they are idea that was on some ballot initiative in Switzerland. I would modify this so that everyone gets enough to prevent them from starving or freezing to death but to get more money a person needs to work or study. The government would both supplement the first $12.50-per hour or so of a person's wages and require employers to pay at least $2.50 per hour more so everyone who works gets at least $15 per hour. However, the government also needs to make sure that enough jobs exist that everyone who can work is able to find a job, and that people who do not have the skills, transportation, or ability to move homes to find a job are able to get the training, transportation, assitance moving, care for children or elderly/sick relatives, etc., to allow them to work. I think the idea of the "full-time student" needs to be phased out a bit. People who are studying at university or a vocational school should be able to get a larger stipend than the "prevention of starvation or freezing" stipend mentioned above, but most students should need to work at least a little bit to supplement this. Tuition to public university and vocational schools, though, should be free for those who are able to be admitted. Universal health insurance with coverage that is completely free for at least primary and preventive care is also necessary. And for those who are truly unable to work due to medical disability, there should be a guaranteed minimum income considerable higher than that needed to prevent starvation or freezing. This would require some means testing, but not as much as in the current system where poverty also needs to be proven. The elderly should all get a similar substantial guaranteed minimum income, but the retirement age would need to be increased for all except those in strenuous physical labor jobs.
I think that this can be affordable if the tax base if sufficiently broadened, loopholes and exemptions are closed, and corporate profits are not taxed so more business stays in a country and more revenue comes from income and consumption taxes. Financial transactions should be taxed as well, but for this to work you need all major economies on board to share the proceeds from this tax.
So it's a dream centuries away from ever seeing the light of day. Businesses, investments, and the super rich may still try to flee the country to avoid taxes and regulation (although a healthy, educated workforce free from the stress of poverty provides a big incentive for employers to stay). What we need is some kind of supranational government to make sure no business or individual can avoid paying whatever taxes are necessary to provide a minimum wage, employment, education, and healthcare to everyone. These taxes can then be distributed to each country based on population. That is even harder to achieve, but who knows what could happen in a few hundred years? I don't see any point in not trying to take small reasonable steps toward it now. But these can't just be stop gap measures like more means-tested assistance programs because these do breed resentment among the middle class and disincentivise work in certain cases among the recipients. The best way to lift the poor out of poverty is to have a safety net that lifts everyone up off the ground a bit, even if that means helping the people who are already rich. No one can complain about makers/givers and takers then, because everyone will be a taker but people will still pretty much need to work to live a decent life (people could refund the government the money if they want, but that would be their choice).
I'm an idealist so I'm ready to hear all the reasons why we should never try to do something like this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Also, what happens when China becomes self-sufficient to the point it no longer needs us as customers?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Also, what happens when China becomes self-sufficient to the point it no longer needs us as customers?
History teaches us that they will then buy up British banks, utilities, and any other large firms which have survived, and then they will really make us work!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Exactly. Our economical system depends on people working for us earning very little. Much of us wouldn't be able to afford a lot of stuff we had in our houses if it weren't so.
The Latin Americans and the Eastern Europeans don't want to do it anymore, in some time the Chinese won't either. Probably the system will be able to shift the burden to the Africans for a short while... and then?
BTW, these people providing cheap labour often don't have the liberty to say what they want. See what happens if they try to form a Union and demand better working conditions.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Exactly. Our economical system depends on people working for us earning very little. Much of us wouldn't be able to afford a lot of stuff we had in our houses if it weren't so.
The Latin Americans and the Eastern Europeans don't want to do it anymore, in some time the Chinese won't either. Probably the system will be able to shift the burden to the Africans for a short while... and then?
BTW, these people providing cheap labour often don't have the liberty to say what they want. See what happens if they try to form a Union and demand better working conditions.
Yes, it's a kind of eerie evocation of the Victorian conditions, low wages, non-unionized, poor conditions, long hours, child labour in some areas.
Maybe it will all reverse, and in 50 years, the British will be working in sweat-shops to supply the Chinese middle class with comfy shirts and jeans.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
in some time the Chinese won't either. Probably the system will be able to shift the burden to the Africans for a short while... and then?
This is already happening. Chinese manufacturing is moving inland as coastal cities become prosperous and no longer wish menial employment. China is already gathering resources in Africa, manpower as well as oil and such.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
deano: quote:
I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children.
I want the best for my child, of course I do. I want her to grow up in a society where she does not have to be afraid of her neighbours. A society where she can walk down the street with a reasonable degree of confidence that she will not be verbally or physically assaulted by gangs of unemployed 'youff' who left school with no qualifications and have nowhere else to go and nothing to do.
It's not enough anymore to just concentrate on educating the "brightest and best" as well as possible. We need everybody. Even the chair of CBI thinks that
businesses should invest more in training their staff. (along with paying them more... I must admit, for a brief moment after reading that news story I thought the Millennium had arrived)
Parents whose ambitions for education begin and end with their own children are not being ambitious enough. IMNSHO.
Yes, because young people who are NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets I was a NEET once and the only danger about me was the danger to myself, since I could not afford to feed myself or heat my home. But demonising young people isn't exactly new, I guess.
You realise your daughter (or anyone else) is more in danger of being attacked by a member of her family than by a young person she doesn't know?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
First of all, let's clear up a terminology issue. Most private schools in the UK are not Public Schools. There is a criteria laid down to be a Public School based on longevity and tradition, and most private schools don't meet this.
(When those on the other side of The Pond read that bit I'm sure it will confuse the hell out of them but they'll figure it out!)
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
You need good grades to get into medical school or onto a Russel Group science or engineering degree course. Those making that cut are both clever and hard working and employers recognise that.
We need to be clear about what qualifications mean to employers. The higher the qualification, the cleverer and more hard working the person. That mean the employer can entrust them with tasks that are more challenging and carry more responsability with them, and also that they will need less motivating to do a good job.
To an employer, little or no qualifications mean the person is not very bright and cannot be given challenging tasks. That's why supermarket checkouts show the teller how much change to give from a £10 note. The employer will also feel the person isn't hard working, as they didn't work hard to get any qualifications. So the employer will feel they need to impose more "management" onto them in the form of more intrusive time-keeping, more discipline, more "targets".
For a school leaver that's the stark reality of employment. Employers cannot assess them in terms of previous work experience and references, only on what qualification they may of may not have.
Of course someone who qualifies as a doctor is hard working and clever and they deserve the higher wages that go with more challenging decisions to make and more responsibility to wield. But a child who gets a top mark on a bricklaying course will be viewed as a better and more hard-working candidate by a building company than one who got a lower grade or no grade on the bricklaying course. So the employer will be more likely to consider the higher grade cadidate is more hard working and motivated.
Many people in good jobs are neither hard-working nor clever. Many people in low-paid jobs are both hard-working and clever. Low-paid jobs are often the hardest jobs, and disproportionately done by women, often non-white and immigrant women (cleaning for example). Cleaning shit from a toilet seems to need hard-working people rather more than being a banker does.
Many people in good jobs (particularly the very best-paid jobs) got there because of networking, school ties and parental influence, all of which is much easier for middle-class white men who went to private school.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes, because young people who are NEETs ( Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets
I've certainly never been mugged at knifepoint by a well-educated businessman.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes, because young people who are NEETs ( Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets
I've certainly never been mugged at knifepoint by a well-educated businessman.
I've lost more to a man with a briefcase than kid with a knife.
And so have you.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jade: quote:
Yes, because young people who are NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets I was a NEET once and the only danger about me was the danger to myself, since I could not afford to feed myself or heat my home. But demonising young people isn't exactly new, I guess.
No, it isn't (see the history of Australia, a country that came into being as a result of previous efforts to 'eliminate the underclass'). A lot of people do it. That was actually my point. I'm sorry if you thought I was having a go at you.
My nephew is a NEET. I have nothing but sympathy for them. Some feel that they have nothing to live for. I think it's outrageous that the government is targeting them in the welfare cuts; not everyone has parents who are able and willing to support them.
But 'not demonising them' isn't all they need; they need something more than sympathy if they are to get out of the NEET trap.
[ 08. January 2014, 08:11: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Okay, everyone keeps posting up the odd outliers in the data set - the toilet cleaner and the beneficiary of parental patronage. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming mass of children, and focusing on them is doing a disservice to those children. It might salve a socialist conscience but it is pointless, misleading and in the end damaging and cruel to children.
Let's get some numbers into the debate eh? Here is a link to an article about how higher education affects lifetime salary.
It's US based, but no less relevant. The same message is true all over the world.
The most telling paragraph is...
quote:
Those with bachelor's degrees, no matter the field, earn vastly more than counterparts with some college ($1.55 million in lifetime earnings) or a high school diploma ($1.30 million lifetime), indicating that no matter the level of attainment or the field of study, simply earning a four-year degree is often integral to financial success later in life.
The same can be said of undergraduate degree's, HND's, A'levels, BTEC's, GCSE's and the like here in the UK.
Education is the most important thing in raising not just children, but a complete society out of poverty. Other things are needed as well but without proper, focused education it's all just pissing in the wind.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've lost more to a man with a briefcase than kid with a knife.
And so have you.
Can you elaborate? We may be operating under different definitions of the word "lost".
For example, the Treasury bailing out the banks wasn't a loss to me. As far as I'm concerned my share of that tax money was lost to me the moment the government took it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've lost more to a man with a briefcase than kid with a knife.
And so have you.
Can you elaborate? We may be operating under different definitions of the word "lost".
For example, the Treasury bailing out the banks wasn't a loss to me. As far as I'm concerned my share of that tax money was lost to me the moment the government took it.
Endowments. Pensions. PPI. Interest exchange agreements. Tax avoidance. Tax fraud. Offshoring. Price fixing. Cartels.
And that's without worrying about the bank bail-outs.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Education is the most important thing in raising not just children, but a complete society out of poverty. Other things are needed as well but without proper, focused education it's all just pissing in the wind.
You realise that you're starting to argue against yourself here?
Absolutely this: the very best education possible, for the masses and not just the few.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
For example, the Treasury bailing out the banks wasn't a loss to me. As far as I'm concerned my share of that tax money was lost to me the moment the government took it.
If the PRIVATE SECTOR banks had not screwed up the global economy and had to be propped up with your tax money, the government could have spent the money on things that you, I and other taxpayers could benefit from. Hospitals. Schools. Libraries. Roads. Upgrading the rail network. Reinforcing coastal defences. You work for a university, don't you? That money the bankers wasted could have funded a decent pay rise for every public sector worker, including the Environment Agency staff who are being laid off just when they're most needed. And there would probably have been enough money left over to pay for pork pies all round (with vegetarian alternative available for non-meat-eaters).
Instead, it all got poured into a black hole. Shovelling it into a heap and setting fire to it would have been better entertainment.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many people in good jobs are neither hard-working nor clever. Many people in low-paid jobs are both hard-working and clever.
This is true, but it is also true that people in good jobs are more likely to be hard-working and clever than those in lower-paying jobs. Also, I think that skill is a more important criterion than cleverness.
quote:
Low-paid jobs are often the hardest jobs, and disproportionately done by women, often non-white and immigrant women (cleaning for example). Cleaning shit from a toilet seems to need hard-working people rather more than being a banker does.
However, one can learn to clean a toilet in far less time than one can learn to be a banker.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Education is the most important thing in raising not just children, but a complete society out of poverty. Other things are needed as well but without proper, focused education it's all just pissing in the wind.
You realise that you're starting to argue against yourself here?
Absolutely this: the very best education possible, for the masses and not just the few.
No I'm not. I used the word "focused" quite carefully, in order to cover a multitude of sins, such as giving more resources to the best and the brightest.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many people in good jobs are neither hard-working nor clever. Many people in low-paid jobs are both hard-working and clever.
This is true, but it is also true that people in good jobs are more likely to be hard-working and clever than those in lower-paying jobs. Also, I think that skill is a more important criterion than cleverness.
quote:
Low-paid jobs are often the hardest jobs, and disproportionately done by women, often non-white and immigrant women (cleaning for example). Cleaning shit from a toilet seems to need hard-working people rather more than being a banker does.
However, one can learn to clean a toilet in far less time than one can learn to be a banker.
just to avoid the usual socialist, class-affected diatribe that will result from your using the word banker, I also offer these jobs that take longer to learn than cleaning a toilet...
Surgeon
Medical Doctor
Chemical Engineer
History Teacher
Mechanical Engineer
Biotechnology Engineer
Solocitor
Barrister
Electronic Engineer
Pilot
Software Engineer
Aerospace Engineer
English Teacher
Physics Teacher
Maths Teacher
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
just to avoid the usual socialist, class-affected diatribe that will result from your using the word banker, I also offer these jobs that take longer to learn than cleaning a toilet...
Surgeon
Medical Doctor
Chemical Engineer
History Teacher
Mechanical Engineer
Biotechnology Engineer
Solocitor
Barrister
Electronic Engineer
Pilot
Software Engineer
Aerospace Engineer
English Teacher
Physics Teacher
Maths Teacher
Still not sure what you're trying to prove here. None of the jobs you've listed can only be done by the children of middle or upper class parents. Working class kids can and do achieve the very highest academic and professional qualifications, if only they have the opportunity.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Still not sure what you're trying to prove here. None of the jobs you've listed can only be done by the children of middle or upper class parents. Working class kids can and do achieve the very highest academic and professional qualifications, if only they have the opportunity.
I know. As I said upthread I was one of them.
But my point is that the secondary education system in the UK today fails most kids by aiming towards an average.
Bad teachers are a huge cause of childrens poor education, not money. The ones who "settle" for the average and don't give a rats that some really bright kids are sat in front of them. They teach to the average and the brightest are held back because the teachers can't be arsed to rise to the challenge of pushing them as far as they can go.
Lack of parental help is also a major factor. If good teachers are willing to go the extra mile for the children, more often than not parents are not bothered. Possible because they never had a good set of teacher to push them. Those parents also "settle" for an average.
I want to see a huge reduction in university courses. Get rid of the - yes I will use the term - Media Studies, and dancec and drama courses that do nothing except teach young adults soft skills in typing up reasonably coherent documents and "communicating" with each other. They can learn those in a short course or two at school.
Focus on properly academic subjects, with a much reduced number of students and give them GRANTS!!! Oh the horror, and from a Tory as well!!
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
May I add: plumber, electrician, millwright, carpenter, heating and air conditioning tech, among others. Most of these require, in Canada, 4-6 years on the job and apprenticeship training and pay better at the start than lawyer or banker. Typically 6 figure salaries here. Unskilled labour paying at this level is oil rig work and mining. The level of motivation required for these is high in terms of physical and cognitive demands.
What I have seen in the past 35 or so years is that there has been an erosion of jobs between the janitorial/low pay/unskilled entry type jobs - in which category I'd also include the service jobs like restaurant and retail clerk - and the skilled trades. The erosion of unionization and legislation which weakens collective bargaining also.
Currently, in my part of Canada (the west) we are in economic boom times, with shortage of workers, low unemployment, etc. There are still poor and unable to work. The community based social services and supports are less than what they once were, even with a booming and expanding economy. The police arrest the mentally and cognitive challenged, and sometimes transport them to jail and other times to tertiary care hospitals, because we don't have the community based care and supports any longer.
Without writing an entire essay, the language that disparages the mixed and well-regulated economy of the affordable welfare state has been dishonest and unfortunate, i.e., terms like "the nanny state". Further, the idea that users shall pay the full costs of services they use, like transit buses, visits to swimming pools, etc has meant public space has become available only to those who have cash in hand. The middle, messy, mixed economy, somewhere between the radical socialist and robber baron capitalist society requires reinstitution. Things were better in the 1970s and late 1960s. What was middle then was liberal social democracy, taxation of windfall profits, moderate levels of gov't involvement and ownership of public services, and high levels of regulations for companies. Somehow the radical right has recast the middle as the left, and extinguished the left. And this has harmed the most disadvantages of us, and given extra to those who have advantages already.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I want to see a huge reduction in university courses. Get rid of the - yes I will use the term - Media Studies!!!
In a period of globalisation and the influence of the media, Media studies is need more than ever unless you want people to be manipulated.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Bad teachers are a huge cause of childrens poor education, not money. The ones who "settle" for the average and don't give a rats that some really bright kids are sat in front of them. They teach to the average and the brightest are held back because the teachers can't be arsed to rise to the challenge of pushing them as far as they can go.
Have you any evidence for this?
And have you considered that it is the government which you support that created league tables that encourage some teachers to do this?
Have you every tried teaching yourself?
Are you prepared to pay teachers more for the long hours they do and keep the government from interfering in their work and changing the goalposts every year, often twice in a year as with English GCSEs?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Still not sure what you're trying to prove here. None of the jobs you've listed can only be done by the children of middle or upper class parents. Working class kids can and do achieve the very highest academic and professional qualifications, if only they have the opportunity.
I know. As I said upthread I was one of them.
But my point is that the secondary education system in the UK today fails most kids by aiming towards an average.
[citation needed] because my kids' GCSE target grades, set by their teachers, are, apart from a B in Spanish, all As and A*s. That's not 'aiming towards an average'.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Still not sure what you're trying to prove here. None of the jobs you've listed can only be done by the children of middle or upper class parents. Working class kids can and do achieve the very highest academic and professional qualifications, if only they have the opportunity.
I know. As I said upthread I was one of them.
But my point is that the secondary education system in the UK today fails most kids by aiming towards an average.
[citation needed] because my kids' GCSE target grades, set by their teachers, are, apart from a B in Spanish, all As and A*s. That's not 'aiming towards an average'.
Yes, so are mine. Well my eldest. She's predicted A's and A*'s as well, but as I keep saying our individual circumstances can't be projected accross an entire countries children.
And if all kids in the entire secondary education sector are being predicted to get A's and A*'s then we need to re-asses the grade structure, because only a few kids are genuinely that bright. I have two kids in secondary education, at either ends of the age range and I know many of the kids in their school and believe me, most of them are NOT predicted, nor ever will be predicted, to get all A's and A*'s.
Leo, I don't need to show evidence (do you think I'm some kind of proper debator or something?).
It's all around! |Children who needed to be taught plumbing, bricklaying and other trades were instead pushed into useless university courses that just loaded them with debt.
It is changing I agree, slowly, but it is changing.
Oh, and so it's only Media Studies graduates that can't be manipulated eh? Other graduates are manipulated easily eh?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yes, so are mine. Well my eldest. She's predicted A's and A*'s as well, but as I keep saying our individual circumstances can't be projected accross an entire countries children.
And if all kids in the entire secondary education sector are being predicted to get A's and A*'s then we need to re-asses the grade structure, because only a few kids are genuinely that bright.
Do you actually understand the mathematical definition of 'average', or do you need to go away and look it up?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'm a bit puzzled, deano. If your experience and the experience of others is that bright kids get set high targets, where are you getting the information that teachers are only aiming for average results? Is it possible that you have been manipulated by the media? Should you have done a media studies degree?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I went to two grammar schools in the late sixties/mid seventies and they both had some bloody awful, lazy teachers. I'm sure those teaching me in the first and second forms especially had used the same texts in the same dry way since they became teachers 30 years before.
If I have achieved anything I would attribute it to the support of my wife and attitude, which beats aptitude and qualifications any day.
[ 08. January 2014, 18:03: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
deano: quote:
Get rid of the - yes I will use the term - Media Studies...
Media Studies does teach critical thinking. I can see why the Powers that Be disapprove.
I must admit, I also disapprove of Media Studies - but mainly because there are other degree courses that teach critical thinking along with other useful things, such as foreign languages (most foreign language degrees require you to study the literature of the language and learn how to do literary criticism). And I'd rather have students studying subjects they are passionately interested in than going through the motions in a subject that they picked just because that course has 100% graduate employment.
I'm pleased to see you approve of academic subjects, though. A lot of people think that degrees in English and History are useless...
[ 08. January 2014, 18:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I went to two grammar schools in the late sixties/mid seventies and they both had some bloody awful, lazy teachers.
My experience too. Except it was one grammar school in the 50s and I would say 'most', rather than some, lazy teachers.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
My nephew did his degree in something that is probably under the heading of Media Studies, and is now working most of the time (freelance) in films - something to do with the sets. Only small stuff yet, mostly uncredited. You may have heard from the Bafta news items how important the film industry now is in this country.
Media Studies isn't meaningless - his university was spoken of as having provided many of the workers on LOTR, I recall. (For a given value of meaningless, of course.)
Ah, I see this fails under the criterion of being a course with 100% employment - but he is keen and enthusiastic.
[ 08. January 2014, 20:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I went to two grammar schools in the late sixties/mid seventies and they both had some bloody awful, lazy teachers.
My experience too. Except it was one grammar school in the 50s and I would say 'most', rather than some, lazy teachers.
Same for me (late sixties, mid seventies). I did well in the subjects that had more engaging teachers.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Penny S: quote:
Ah, I see this fails under the criterion of being a course with 100% employment - but he is keen and enthusiastic.
I wasn't entirely clear, was I? What I meant was that I (personally) don't approve of Media Studies and will probably try to steer Daughter towards something else. But I think the most important factor in choosing a degree is enthusiasm for the subject. Enthusiastic people tend to get better results, because they are more highly motivated to study in their spare time. So if Media Studies is the only thing she really wants to do when the time comes (if there are any universities left by then) I won't stand in her way.
Glad to hear that your nephew is doing well, btw.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Okay, I also mentioned dance and drama courses. I notice those have been conveniently overlooked by the defenders of the Media Studies courses.
Do any of our great actors owe their skills to a degree in the subject? Or our dancers?
They may have gone to specialist drama or dance schools but they have always existed and are valuable in turning out the great mass of those people in those arts. Can the same be said for graduates of Leeds University's Dance degree?
Or are those degrees merely cash-cows for universities? Are they merely ways of giving some air of "respectability" for a young person who's first job will be in a call centre?
Wouldn't that young person be better off being taught the soft skills they need in school, up to 18, before setting them off into the call centre? That way they won't be saddled with student loan debts and they's still be working in the same call centre! They will just be three years younger, have more money in their pockets, and will be contributing to their own familiies and society in general.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Leo, I don't need to show evidence (do you think I'm some kind of proper debator or something?). ....Oh, and so it's only Media Studies graduates that can't be manipulated eh? Other graduates are manipulated easily eh?
Certainly not 'proper' but you keep making right wing assertions as if they are self-evident.
And you haven't said how we can counter current indoctrination by media.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I went to two grammar schools in the late sixties/mid seventies and they both had some bloody awful, lazy teachers.
My experience too. Except it was one grammar school in the 50s and I would say 'most', rather than some, lazy teachers.
Same for me (late sixties, mid seventies). I did well in the subjects that had more engaging teachers.
Same for me, in the nineties. Same for my daughter, current time (both grammar schools). Some of the laziness and incompetence beggars belief.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Certainly not 'proper' but you keep making right wing assertions as if they are self-evident.
Well duh! Hello, right-winger here... we are right. All the time! Which bit is confusing you?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And you haven't said how we can counter current indoctrination by media.
That only needs countering if there is "indoctrination by media" and I think your begging the question a little!
I see no evidence for indoctrination. If you view things through Marxist-Leninist eyes then you may well see it. But in that case it doesn't exist, only faulty eyes.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
I think this idea that there is an easily discernable difference between the 'mickey mouse' degrees and the 'hard' degrees is utter tosh.
A while back a minister made some statement about needlework degrees. It turned out that the few needlework degrees that existed turned out people who were so well educated that they all quickly obtained full time jobs on graduation.
In contrast, I've lost count of people who have done STEM courses who are out of work or who are underemployed in non-graduate work.
Engineering seems to have good prospects for many who complete the courses with good grades, but there is no certainty in many of the traditional science degree subjects, particularly with the closure of big public and private employers.
I overheard someone talking about a degree in social media relations the other day - which sounds like one of these worthless degrees, but on reflection may well be highly employable.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Certainly not 'proper' but you keep making right wing assertions as if they are self-evident.
Well duh! Hello, right-winger here... we are right. All the time! Which bit is confusing you?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And you haven't said how we can counter current indoctrination by media.
That only needs countering if there is "indoctrination by media" and I think your begging the question a little!
I see no evidence for indoctrination. If you view things through Marxist-Leninist eyes then you may well see it. But in that case it doesn't exist, only faulty eyes.
If you are so conformed to the view of Western capitalism that you are unable to detect anything else, nothing else will make you reassess anything this side of judgement day.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you are so conformed to the view of Western capitalism that you are unable to detect anything else, nothing else will make you reassess anything this side of judgement day.
Yes, probably. I grew up at the last half of the cold war, and watched the unions and the Labour Party bring Britain to her knee's until Mrs. Thatcher fixed it. I was bullied in a pit village school because I was clever. I got away from it.
So yes, I am a dyed-in-the-wool, old-fashioned, one-nation, slightly reactonary Tory. I've seen the left up close and personal and don't like it, and don't believe it worked then and nothing about it indicates to me it can work in the future.
Sorry.
I suppose Judgement Day will clarify a few things, but as you say, certainly not before.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
One can easily find just the opposite view of the same time period, so I'm not so sure how valuable an insight that is.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One can easily find just the opposite view of the same time period, so I'm not so sure how valuable an insight that is.
Only by those who lost - the hard left. Who are dying of old age now.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I was bullied in a pit village school because I was clever.
Really? I reckon this is the real reason ...
quote:
So yes, I am a dyed-in-the-wool, old-fashioned, one-nation, slightly reactonary Tory.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I was bullied in a pit village school because I was clever.
Really? I reckon this is the real reason ...
quote:
So yes, I am a dyed-in-the-wool, old-fashioned, one-nation, slightly reactonary Tory.
I was bullied for being clever before I knew about politics. Clever kids are bullied for being clever. They were then, they are now.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One can easily find just the opposite view of the same time period, so I'm not so sure how valuable an insight that is.
Only by those who lost - the hard left. Who are dying of old age now.
We could trade silly one-line barbs and feel smug in our wit. But the real problems are rarely solved so easily. Rarely are they one-sided or simple.
And that is the problem. Real solutions are more difficult to find, longer in implementation and often less satisfying in result.
Politicians don't have the fortitude and the public not the patience.
[ 09. January 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
deano: quote:
Do any of our great actors owe their skills to a degree in the subject? Or our dancers?
What's that got to do with the price of fish? Many graduates go into jobs that are not directly related to their degree subjects. Refusing to acknowledge the value of a degree in the performing arts because the person who holds it is not guaranteed to become a world-famous actor is like saying an English degree is worthless unless you become a best-selling author.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Oh, and by the way Deano, I know someone with a degree in maths who has been working as a sales assistant in a shoe shop since he graduated. He's just embarked on a new career... as a yoga teacher. He got a good degree, too.
It would probably have saved him a lot of time and money if he'd studied something like Sport Science at university instead.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I grew up at the last half of the cold war, and watched the unions and the Labour Party bring Britain to her knee's until Mrs. Thatcher fixed it.
You forgot to finish the sentence: 'fixed it for her rich cronies by blatantly lying to the country and especially the miners.'
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
By 'rich cronies' do you mean the upwardly mobile working and lower middle classes?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
By 'rich cronies' do you mean the upwardly mobile working and lower middle classes?
Of course nowadays in the USA the ability of the working and lower middles classes to be upwardly mobile is virtually gone. But those were happier times and it was Britain, so I'm not sure it applies.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Must ... res.sist ...
Deano doesn't bullied here for being clever.
I was bullied for being clever too. Didn't turn me into Tory Boy or William Hague. But then, neither of them are clever either ...
(Joke guys, joke ...)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Deano, almost every bright kid was bullied at school, whether or not it was a pit village (you), a rural school in the heart of the Tory shires (me), or a city comp. Your experience, while unique to you, was not unique.
I'm sure someone will be along to tell us why that happens, but becoming a Tory is not the inevitable outcome. There is hope for you yet...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
My own experience - I was bullied at a private school. Probably for being odd, and useless at games. My sister, at the same school, provably cleverer than me, was not. (Good at games.) In the state school I then arrived at where I was probably cleverer than the average, I was not bullied. (Still bad at games.) (And, I found out much later, I had "broken" a friendship on arrival.)
And then, as a teacher in a state primary, I knew a number of clever children. Most of them were not bullied. Regardless of games ability. Where there was bullying, it was for other reasons. The one that sticks out was a child who had been enrolled in an organisation that made him feel superior not only to other children but also staff. Most of the clever ones had friends and no problems.
[ 09. January 2014, 20:11: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
I was bullied at school for not being clever enough and/or not in the right 'in-group'. I don't think there is anywhere to go in school where forms of bullying do not exist. Kids always pick on other kids that are [perceived to be] different, wherever you are.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
By 'rich cronies' do you mean the upwardly mobile working and lower middle classes?
No. And even if so, does that absolve her from those lies?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
By 'rich cronies' do you mean the upwardly mobile working and lower middle classes?
No. And even if so, does that absolve her from those lies?
I expect Angloid means Dennis and his friends. Margaret married well above herself. She was high-achieving ex-grammar school, while Dennis Thatcher was ex-public school heir to a family business and a millionaire in 1948 (ie, when that meant something). How else could she afford to train as a barrister?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I certainly included those of her intimate circle. But I was also implying the 1% of the population who possess 20% of the nation's wealth.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Maybe those who were bullied in conservative heartlands developed a chip on their shoulder about the right wing, and ran quickly as far left as they could get.
I grew up in a late 70’s and early 80’s pit village and know more about the miners’ strike than most because I lived in that community. I went to school with miner’s kids and played football with miner’s kids. That environment was in a Labour heartland and socialism was lived and breathed there. The old hard-left type. Perhaps because I was bullied in that environment I developed a chip on my shoulder about the left-wing and ran as quickly as I could to get to the right.
Who cares? What matters is that I don’t have any positive experience of socialism and the far left. I’ve never heard of any policies that are feasible from the left. Any that are have been policies of the moderate right that the left managed to get on board with for a while. There are no left-wing politicians who I respect FOR THEIR POLITICS. I do respect some of the old Labour politicians who fought in the war, for their courage. I respect some of them for the sheer brilliance of their minds, but for their politics, I have nothing but contempt.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What matters is that I don’t have any positive experience of socialism and the far left. I’ve never heard of any policies that are feasible from the left.
Apart from free public schooling, the NHS, minimum wages, the Health and Safety at work Act...
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
... I’ve never heard of any policies that are feasible from the left. ...
How do you know that they're not feasible? What would be a fair test for the feasibility of a government policy?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What matters is that I don’t have any positive experience of socialism and the far left. I’ve never heard of any policies that are feasible from the left.
Apart from free public schooling, the NHS, minimum wages, the Health and Safety at work Act...
What did the Roman Empire ever do for us?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
That's the first time I've ever seen the Roman Empire lumped in with the left-wing...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Surely you recognise the allusion?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the first time I've ever seen the Roman Empire lumped in with the left-wing...
Free bread (and circuses) was a start. If there was trouble an emperor would hold a Triumph. The main motive was to discourage warfare rather than to promote welfare, so I suppose Rome was more right-wing, in that it only provided handouts to the extent that it would prevent people from overthrowing the government!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What matters is that I don’t have any positive experience of socialism and the far left. I’ve never heard of any policies that are feasible from the left.
Apart from free public schooling, the NHS, minimum wages, the Health and Safety at work Act...
Which things the Tories now support. The great victory of the Left is making things that were once radical and lefty mainstream.
We are winning, from a historical perspective.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I don't think the tories support them, they just know they're popular so daren't oppose them.
I find it interesting that deano admits that his politics aren't remotely rational - just petty revenge on people who were mean to him at school. Reminds me of those atheists who react against a conservative Christian upbringing by slavishly following Dawkins & co.
[ 10. January 2014, 18:25: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think the tories support them, they just know they're popular so daren't oppose them.
I find it interesting that deano admits that his politics aren't remotely rational - just petty revenge on people who were mean to him at school. Reminds me of those atheists who react against a conservative Christian upbringing by slavishly following Dawkins & co.
... and what analysis would you make of those upthread who said they lived in Tory shires and were bullied or went to private schools and were bullied, and who are now avowed socialists?
Surely you would want to extend your theorem to those?
I mean, why wouldn't you? Oh, yes... they are socialists.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I was bullied at school for not being clever enough and/or not in the right 'in-group'. I don't think there is anywhere to go in school where forms of bullying do not exist. Kids always pick on other kids that are [perceived to be] different, wherever you are.
Everyone is different. There is bullying in every school. the victim - and sometimes the bullies or the teachers - will attempt to explain or excuse the bullying by stressing how different the victim is. But if another victim had been chosen (or "emerged" the way Tory leaders used to) another difference would have been used to explain it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think the tories support them, they just know they're popular so daren't oppose them.
I find it interesting that deano admits that his politics aren't remotely rational - just petty revenge on people who were mean to him at school. Reminds me of those atheists who react against a conservative Christian upbringing by slavishly following Dawkins & co.
... and what analysis would you make of those upthread who said they lived in Tory shires and were bullied or went to private schools and were bullied, and who are now avowed socialists?
Surely you would want to extend your theorem to those?
I mean, why wouldn't you? Oh, yes... they are socialists.
It's your hypothesis (it's not a theorem unless it is proven), not mine. You only speak for yourself. I've no idea what the politics were/are of the people who bullied me at school (could have been any of the three main parties, but most likely lib dem), I don't really see how it's a relevant consideration.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In a period of globalisation and the influence of the media, Media studies is need more than ever unless you want people to be manipulated.
Can you support this assertion that people are manipulated less because media studies graduates exist? My baseline assumption would be that the existence of media studies graduates makes no difference at all to the likelihood of the average person being manipulated by skewed information from whatever source.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
No evidence - any more than you have to the contrary. I don't know how someone would go about empirical research on this - just like the assumption that learning history is important - otherwise you are destined to repeat it.
The nearest example I can think of is that the USA doesn't teach religious Education and it seems to have swathes of fundamentalists; whereas the UK has much more critical thinking about religion and less fundamentalist.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The nearest example I can think of is that the USA doesn't teach religious Education and it seems to have swathes of fundamentalists; whereas the UK has much more critical thinking about religion and less fundamentalist.
The US population also includes a far higher percentage of regular churchgoers than the UK.
Moo
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Well, well. Can it really be that LABOUR are planning this...
Teachers would have to be licensed every few years in order to work in England's state schools under a future Labour government, the BBC has learned.
I wonder what a few of the Labour Party supoprters think of this little scheme.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well, well. Can it really be that LABOUR are planning this...
Teachers would have to be licensed every few years in order to work in England's state schools under a future Labour government, the BBC has learned.
I wonder what a few of the Labour Party supoprters think of this little scheme.
It might be regarded as a replacement for registration with the General Teaching Council (abolished in 2012), which was a requirement for all teachers.
[ 11. January 2014, 14:14: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well, well. Can it really be that LABOUR are planning this...
Teachers would have to be licensed every few years in order to work in England's state schools under a future Labour government, the BBC has learned.
I wonder what a few of the Labour Party supoprters think of this little scheme.
I'm not a Labour supporter but, as with most things related to education policy in England, I'm thinking "I'm glad I don't work in England any more". It is, alas, a long time since the Labour party favoured anything beyond the mildest kinds of social democracy. Blaming teachers is a classic tactic to avoid having to deal with poverty and its effects.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
The answer to bad teachers is obvious: pay teachers more. That will attract those "clever" and "hard-working" people into the profession.
It seems that there is an underlying assumption that "clever, hard-working" people have to be paid lots of money to apply their cleverness and work ethic; otherwise, they'll just slack off and we won't have enough professionals to run our society. At the other end of the scale, dumb, lazy people can be expected do simple jobs incompetently for little money. These folks, apparently, can only be motivated by fear of losing of what little income they have.
And speaking of "clever" and "hard-working", a student at my institution of higher learning had an article published in the student newspaper complaining about having to write a cover letter to apply for a minimum wage job. Conversely, the cashier at the food establishment to which this student was applying told me last week that she enjoyed her holidays, but after a few days, she really wanted to get back to work.
Going back a bit, it seems that every discussion about poverty ends up focusing on how important it is to keep rich people happy. As Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you, and boy, are they a fucking pain in the ass, always asking for shit and trying to make you feel guilty for being successful. Am I right?"
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The answer to bad teachers is obvious: pay teachers more.
I would have thought the obvious answer to bad teachers is to sack them? Although, given the ridiculously low number of teachers who have been sacked over the years, it's a point that eluded a lot of people.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The answer to bad teachers is obvious: pay teachers more.
I would have thought the obvious answer to bad teachers is to sack them? Although, given the ridiculously low number of teachers who have been sacked over the years, it's a point that eluded a lot of people.
Generally if you're teaching badly you will resign before you get sacked - being in a teaching job when you can't cope with it isn't fun. The problem with trying to sack bad teachers is that it's often difficult to tell who is a bad teacher. I've heard too many stories of bullying management using capability proceedings to force out anyone whose face doesn't fit, regardless of competence, to have any trust in a system that makes dismissing teachers easier.
There's also a false dichotomy between good and bad teachers. A lot depends on circumstance. A good teacher in a school with a capable intake, who can teach up to Further Maths A-Level and coach the Cambridge STEP might get eaten alive if they tried to pick up set 10 year 11 on a Friday afternoon in a comp in Kent. And the teacher who can have that set 10 eating out of their hand, quiet, attentive and learning, might struggle to keep up with the high fliers in the first school. Neither of them are bad teachers, but they'd certainly look like it in the wrong setting. When the likes of Ofsted talk about X thousands bad teachers, they mean that a certain percentage of the lessons they've observed have been, in their often bizarre judgement, inadequate. Put those teachers in a different situation and you see a different result.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The answer to bad teachers is obvious: pay teachers more.
I would have thought the obvious answer to bad teachers is to sack them? Although, given the ridiculously low number of teachers who have been sacked over the years, it's a point that eluded a lot of people.
Except that several posters have reported that many, most or all teachers are "bad" or "lazy". If you sack a majority of teachers, who replaces them? How do you ensure the replacements are better than the ones that were sacked?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Deano, almost every bright kid was bullied at school, whether or not it was a pit village (you), a rural school in the heart of the Tory shires (me), or a city comp. Your experience, while unique to you, was not unique.
I'm sure someone will be along to tell us why that happens
It's because thick kids are well aware of their shortcomings, and try to compensate for them by lashing out against those who are their intellectual betters.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Deano, almost every bright kid was bullied at school, whether or not it was a pit village (you), a rural school in the heart of the Tory shires (me), or a city comp. Your experience, while unique to you, was not unique.
I'm sure someone will be along to tell us why that happens
It's because thick kids are well aware of their shortcomings, and try to compensate for them by lashing out against those who are their intellectual betters.
Or the measurement for success in school is academic performance. This puts pressure on those who do not perform as well. The reaction is bullying.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Deano, almost every bright kid was bullied at school, whether or not it was a pit village (you), a rural school in the heart of the Tory shires (me), or a city comp. Your experience, while unique to you, was not unique.
I'm sure someone will be along to tell us why that happens
It's because thick kids are well aware of their shortcomings, and try to compensate for them by lashing out against those who are their intellectual betters.
Or the measurement for success in school is academic performance. This puts pressure on those who do not perform as well. The reaction is bullying.
In lots of schools - at least when I was growing up in the 70s - the measurement of success was sporting achievement, or some other form of non-academic prowess. My brother was a fine orator and actor, and good at sports (and he still is). I was short-sighted and crap at ball games, running, jumping, climbing - anything that involved physical coordination. Being bad at sports is also a factor in bullying.
Marvin is, I think closer: some of my bullies had essentially peaked at secondary school and would be trapped in whatever life they already had. I was, through sheer force of will, getting out of there no matter what.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
We are not exactly stating different things, we are placing a different emphasis.
Marvin's statement directs the responsibility towards the individual, mine towards society. A combination is more accurate.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0