You own yourself. This means that you own the fruits of your body's labor and your mind's ingenuity.
I'm glad discussions on policy are happening across the country. I had more than a little concern that policy would fall off the radar after the elections and during the holiday season. Fortunately, I have observed everything from concerns over the fate of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to quite a lot of discussion on taxation. Taxation is especially important to me.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Mark Saleski
i love this argument about how public schools are so bad.
normally, conservatives are big on things like personal responsibility.
not so in the case of public schools. it's ALL the school's fault.
really?
read a book lately?
how about your kid?
how many hours have been spent on the playstation? web surfing? instant messaging? television?
we as a society have fully embraced electronic mediation of all sorts, and our collective attention spans shrink away.
the schools are certainly partially to blame for this...but we are our own worst enemy in some respects.
27 - bhw
The preoccupation now is with test-score raising, not necessary with teaching kids the things that children ought to be learning.
Or, god forbid, what they might actually be interested in learning.
There are many flaws in public schools. Most of those flaws exist because of public school design: teach a large number of kids with different abilities, learning styles, family situations, etc., etc., all at once. And do it well, for all of them.
This kind of design is bound to fail in many instances. It tends not to fail in wealthier school districts. That's not a coincidence. Children in wealthier school districts tend to have parents who are better educated and more engaged in their children's schooling. They have more resources available to them if their children struggle in school, and they tend to intervene earlier when their kids do struggle. The schools alone are not responsible for their own success. Much of that comes from the larger community in which the schools exist. To a great extent, the schools ride the successful coattails of the community.
Just as schools alone are not responsible for their own success, they are not responsible alone for their failures. Again, they reflect the struggles and challenges of the communities they're in. The schools in poor neighborhoods have to contend with an entire population of students who go home to troubled families, poverty, and often abuse. How can a school in this kind of community keep up with one in an upper-middle-class suburban one? It can't -- it has so much more to deal with than basic literacy, while the suburban schools have far fewer distractions.
Aside from the socio-economic influences on school success, there are other pedagogical problems. Children are not all the same, don't learn the same way, aren't interested in the same things, and don't have the same abilities. But they're all expected to do the same school work at the same time [and in the same amount of time] and at the same level of achievment, or else the school is considered failing.
We need to radically change what we think of as a) education in general and b) the structure of public schools. Starving the beast, as NCLB is designed to do, won't solve the problem of education in our country. It will simply penalize already struggling schools, and thereby penalize the children in those communities. Good luck transfering to a "successful" school in a district that is doing poorly overall. You and everyone else will want your kid in the good school, but there will only be so many seats to go around.
My belief is that NCLB is just step one in destroying the public school system. The next step will be to give taxpayer money to move children out of public schools into for-profit schools or religious schools. That will be a sad day, indeed.
28 - andy marsh
Mark - My kid does quite well in school. My daughter takes AP and honors classes. This is in spite of the disruptions from kids in school that DON'T want to learn.
Last year, when my oldest was a senior, she took what was supposed to be an oceanography class. Her teacher spentthe entire year working on a Chesapeake Bay Oyster replenishment program that was sponsored by the state! I mean, granted, the Chesapeake Bay is salt water, but oyster replenishment isn't oceanography! In another class she had one ofthose teachers that attempts to use the words she has no clue how to use. All I kept thinking when I met her was about the Bowery Boys and the character Satch who used to make up his own words, sorta like Norm Crosby does!
Steve - there's NOTHING free about public education! Public schools in this country receive anywhere from $3000 to $6000 per student per year! And that's just on a state level. Maybe if administrators were sucking up all the money teachers could do a better job!
YOu say teachers have to worry about test scores now. This would be a problem if they worried about anything else before that. I'm not saying all teachers are bad. I've met some in the past 14 years while my daughters have been going to school that are outstanding! I'd even say that I've met more good ones than bad ones. But I have met some awful teachers. I've met teachers that didn't have any command of the english language and wondered how they could possible be teachers!
And lastly, all welfare does is keep people from getting off their asses and getting a job! I might agree with training programs, but giving people money just for the sake of giving them money, MY MONEY, is total BS! I'm so tired of going to the grocery store and seeing someone using food stamps and also seeing a couple of 6-packs on the conveyer as well. Get a Freaking job!
29 - bhw
So much for the thread on self-ownership, huh Mike?
To put the education subtrhead into that context, I think that public schools should stop trying the one-size-fits-all model and go with smaller schools, smaller classrooms, and more student choice. It might cost more in the short run, but many small private schools survive on a per-pupil tuition cost that is lower than public school per-pupil costs. Of course, private school teachers don't have the same salary/benefits package that public school teachers do.
I personally think you'll have better schools when they are places kids actually want to go. When you have compulsory learning, you're going to have disinterested kids, if not rebellious ones.
So I'm all for injecting more self-determination in public schools and letting kids direct mroe of their learning.
30 - andy marsh
Isn't this part of self-ownership?
31 - bhw
Andy, in my town, there are more than 7000 public school sudents in five schools. How much should an administrator make, if s/he is responsible not only for all those kids but also for the teachers and other employees?
32 - bhw
Isn't what?
33 - andy marsh
bhw - I would say that depends on the job s/he is doing!
34 - andy marsh
this public school discussion.
35 - bhw
Andy, lots of people who work and work hard are still poor enough to qualify for food stamps and other assistance.
Welfare does not *only* keep people from getting jobs. The vast majority of people who receive welfare do so only temporarily. You're talking in stereotypes now.
36 - andy marsh
that may be the case now. After the BJ king changed the rules a while back. And exactly how do stereotypes become stereotypes?
37 - bhw
Last year, when my oldest was a senior, she took what was supposed to be an oceanography class. Her teacher spentthe entire year working on a Chesapeake Bay Oyster replenishment program that was sponsored by the state! I mean, granted, the Chesapeake Bay is salt water, but oyster replenishment isn't oceanography!
It sounds like a good class to me, Andy. To each his own.
But without that state funding, there would be no classes on oceanography or oyster replenishment at all. I think variety is a good thing. And with NCLB, those electives will soon disappear, along with recess [this is actually happening to some schools in MA -- no recess]. If it can't directly prepare students for questions on the standardized state test, the class won't exist.
38 - bhw
that may be the case now. After the BJ king changed the rules a while back.
No, this has always been true. It's always been that the majority go on welfare temporarily --most people DON'T like being on it and WANT to work -- and that a minority stay on it for a long time.
And exactly how do stereotypes become stereotypes?
When other people erroneously assign the behavior or characteristics of a small number of people to the entire group to which they belong.
39 - bhw
bhw - I would say that depends on the job s/he is doing!
Do you have any idea what public school administrators really do? Or what they're responsible for? The number of people and size of the budgets they're responsible for overseeing tell me that their salaries are justified.
Perhaps you have some incompetent administrators where you live. The ones by me seem to be competent and qualified, and I don't begrudge them their salaries.
40 - andy marsh
Actually, the administrators here in Va. Beach, for the most part, are a pretty good group of people . I've been back here for a year and a half now. I was so impressed with this school system when I lived here before that I settled for a smaller house to live in this particular district. Virginia, Hampton Roads in particular, is a very affordable place compared to the northeast. I know what my folks pay in property taxes in NJ (3X what I pay)and it's ridiculous in comparison.
Out in AZ, the cost of living was about the same, but the schools were terrible!
I don't believe it was a money thing though. I believe it was primarily a lack of interest on most of the parents!
I have been very involved with my children's education over the years, so yes, I do know what administrators do, or what they're supposed to do. I also know the difference between good ones and bad ones and I've seen both.
I'd say that the town you live in, bhw, is the exception to the rule...here's some more stereotyping for you...you have no incompetence in your government run school system! I'm impressed.
41 - andy marsh
bhw - the oyster replenishment class would be a good class...for someone that wanted to learn about oyster replenishment. My daughter wanted an oceanography class. Didn't you just say earlier that the kids should direct more of their own learning?
42 - Steve S
Andy, you said yourself that there are good administrators and good teachers. There are actually more good ones than not. Your own words. So why would you advocate their death knell? Why would you parrot the ideology of the Right when it contradicts your own philosophy?
Are you middle class? (answer to yourself, you don't have to answer publicly). Should public education not exist, how would you have educated your own daughters? In spite of some issues you might have with the school system, like your oceanography example, wouldn't you say your family benefitted from the public education system? Didn't it do more good than harm to your family? So why do you call for it's death now? Cuz you're told to, right?
What happens to a democracy, Andy, when all education comes at a cost? Right now, the public education does cost taxpayers, yes. But it is a fundamental institution required to enable the impoverished equal opportunity in this country and the ability to create a better life and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think you truly comprehend what you are calling for when you say that public education should be shut down, when you, yourself admit that it benefitted your own family. Think about what you are saying and who is telling you to say it.
43 - andy marsh
I never said it should be shut down!
The deal is, just like with anything else. A little competition for the dollars and the teachers! Right now the public school system has no reason to succeed! If they, just like you and me, thought that they had to actually do something for their dollars I think it would change things.
The accountability that you Steve, seem to have a problem with! The federal govt took action because states weren't holding schools accountable. They mandated achievement testing and put ultimatums on administrators. Bring the level of education up or lose your job. But YOU take the glass half empty line. Districts and schools that fail to make AYP-and that will be virtually all of them - are subject to increasingly severe, and unworkable, sanctions. Then I guess they better pull their heads out of their asses and teach kids to read and write! and plenty of schools ALREADY meet the standards. The ones that don't, who's fault is that? That kids get promoted when they don't meet the minimum requirements to pass a grade. I put it on the liberals that whine about how it might affect a kids self esteem if he gets left back a grade. I bet it hurts their self esteem a lot more when they get to HS and STILL CAN'T READ! But by then, they probably don't give a shit anyway! And I put it on teachers that "couldn't be bothered". And yeah, I put it on parents that can't see that their own freaking kid can't read!
The Superintendent of the school system I lived in when I was in AZ came from the Va school system. She should have known the things that needed to be done after having worked in a good school system. But she didn't fix the problems!
You bitch that the schools can't make the grade, I say you're not getting your monies worth! When I'm not getting my money's worth, first I bitch, then I go somewhere else! That's one of the reasons I DON'T live in AZ anymore.
44 - Steve S
In comment 24, Andy says:
MOST public schools would die. You know why? Because something that diseased is incurable and should be put to death!
In comment 43, Andy says:
I never said it should be shut down!
The federal govt took action because states weren't holding schools accountable.
Whatever happened to the conservative ideology of state's rights?
plenty of schools ALREADY meet the standards.
This directly contradicts your theory that the public education system sucks. According to the White House's own commission, most schools will not meet the standards of NCLB, in spite of the fact that the school system does put out more children who can read and write, than cannot.
I bet it hurts their self esteem a lot more when they get to HS and STILL CAN'T READ!
This is an issue that needs to be addressed. But NCLB is not correcting the problem. NCLB is making sure that kid can pass a test. A specific test. That's all. This issue is not 'rampant' either, the majority do learn how to read and write. This society is not primarily illiterate.
I put it on teachers that "couldn't be bothered". And yeah, I put it on parents that can't see that their own freaking kid can't read!
I do too. It's unfortunate that the solution offered by the government does not address either of those situations though. Teachers now have less time to devote to teaching reading and writing. Bhw has offered some good solutions as to the overhaul of the educational system, via smaller classrooms, etc. Many similiar concepts would go far to better education. It's unfortunate that the solution we have decided upon also fits the definition of extortion.
45 - Mike Kole
It looks like we are back to italics hell.
Almost everybody hit on the thing about schools that I think is most important- parental involvement. It doesn't matter how good the teacher, or how much money is spent per pupil, if the parents are merely warehousing the kids, and fail to insist that their children behave in the classroom.
I think the school debate is worthy of its' own post and thread. I'd kinda like to steer this back to taxes, if everyone would be so kind.
46 - bhw
47 - bhw
Okay, Mike, I hear you about getting back on track. But I can't do that until I at least respond to a coupla quick things.
My daughter wanted an oceanography class. Didn't you just say earlier that the kids should direct more of their own learning?
Yes, but they can't do it in any typical h.s. classes right now. If it had been the course she was expecting, she still wouldn't have directed her own learning. The teacher would have done it for her. But it does sound like your daughter got caught in a bait and switch, which is a shame. I don't think that's really a big problem in today's public schools in general, though, particularly when most schools couldn't dream of offering a course that strays from the standard SAT prep courses.
Then I guess they better pull their heads out of their asses and teach kids to read and write! and plenty of schools ALREADY meet the standards. The ones that don't, who's fault is that?
Andy, why do you assume that every poor person is lazy or every school district with severe problems results from bad teachers and administrators? Couldn't it be that life is a little more complicated than that? Couldn't it be that some poor people work very hard but never get ahead? And couldn't it be that teachers and administrators in failing schoold districts are hard-working and good at what they do, but that they face problems that reach well beyond how to teach reading, writing, and math? Again, it's not a coincidence that the wealthiest school districts perform well and the poorest perform poorly.
She should have known the things that needed to be done after having worked in a good school system. But she didn't fix the problems!
I wouldn't necessarily expect someone who came from a "good" school system to know how to fix problems in a "bad" one. Those two communities could be entirely different; if so, their students would bring entirely different problems from home into the schools.
48 - bhw
you have no incompetence in your government run school system! I'm impressed.
I wouldn't say that, necessarily. I said that the administrators -- in particular, the ones who make a six-figure salary, which is who you were painting with your broad brush -- seem to be competent at their jobs. There could be incompetence at lower levels, though. In fact, I know of one person in particular who I think should be gone from the school she's in. But I don't judge the whole school district on that one person's performance. I try to see the big picture, and overall, the picture I see is of hard-working, dedicated professionals who not only enjoy what they do but who believe in it.
49 - Al Barger
end italics, thanks
50 - bhw
Hey, you didn't start the italics. How did you end them? I tried a couple of posts up and it didn't work.
51 - Steve S
sorry about the italics. I am a product of the public school system. Just kidding.
My daughter put peanut butter on my keyboard awhile back and the shift key can stick. I try to keep an eye out for html tag errors.
The fact that the italics continue on, must be a browser/operating system issue because, while my entire post (where the problem started) is in italics, the very next comment is not, which is why I didn't bother to correct it (not that I really could anyway).
Anyway, my fault and sorry.
52 - RJ
"I believe in the public schools."
Well, some people believe in Santa too... ;)
53 - RJ
"So education should only go to those who can afford it."
This is Bush's policy?
No?
Didn't think so...
54 - RJ
"The vast majority of people who receive welfare do so only temporarily."
Yes, thanks to "heartless Republicans" and their Welfare Reform...
55 - RJ
I attended public schools my entire life. And, with a few exceptions (higher-level math courses, foreign-language courses, etc.) there was little "learning" involved.
We's spend a week or two on a subject, say, in a social science class, and then take a test on the material. But it was mostly stuff I already knew, or could have learned in a few hours of simply reading a textbook in a public library!
Home-schooling is probably the best way to go, as long as both student and parent are motivated. Of course, those who home-school still have to pay taxes into the failed public school system...
And also, not every child has the option of home-schooling, because both parents often work full-time jobs during the day. So this remains only an option for some (but a very good option, IMO).
Maybe my personal experience with incompetent teachers who offer misinformation and "learning" material that is embarrassingly basic and outdated is rare. But I doubt it.
56 - Steve S
I believe in the public schools.
Well, some people believe in Santa too
And some people believe in Jesus, too.
So education should only go to those who can afford it.
This is Bush's policy?
No?
Didn't think so..
Reports from dozens of different sources say it will be the end result though. If there's one thing the war in Iraq has shown us, is that the policies of Bush and the results of Bush don't always equate.
The vast majority of people who receive welfare do so only temporarily.
Yes, thanks to "heartless Republicans" and their Welfare Reform...
Clinton was the one who signed the Welfare Reform created by heartless Republicans. I've done a lot of googling on 'welfare reform and Clinton', and all I can find are negative story after negative story of statistics where only about 17-20% of those kicked off welfare have been able to find employment. The number of homeless has shot up to 35 million. Depends on the story you track down.
The only assumption one can conclude from this, is that the welfare reform created by 'heartless Republicans' have put millions on the streets. Can't find any report that says otherwise.
Maybe my personal experience with incompetent teachers
Biting my tongue.
57 - DrPat
The number of homeless has shot up to 35 million...
34.4 million of whom vanish like smoke when the census comes 'round. Really, such amazing claims require PROOF.
Unless you're including homeless cats and dogs in that number.
58 - Steve S
Dr. Pat, I wish I had saved the link. I did come across so many different numbers, how is it even possible to count the homeless on a census?
I've seen reports where the homeless are only considered homeless if they live on the streets. I've seen reports where people who cannot afford their own homes and so live on the living room floor of a relative are considered homeless, so it all depends. Of course, I did point out in my post, that there are varying numbers and data, there can be no way to accurately count such a nomadic group.
I did think that number was rather high. Here might be what I was googling at the time, I just googled 35 million and homeless:
"With nearly 35 million Americans living in poverty, more than 14 million people paying over half of their income on housing, and over 5 million renter households living in “worst case” housing situations, the cuts approved by the House Appropriations Committee will only exacerbate these trends and increase the number of our neighbors with nowhere to turn but shelters and the streets."
source: pdf file.
I must have misread. I should have said that in our current population of 292 million, well over 10% of the population is living in destitution and poverty under the Bush economy. Apparently that would have been more accurate. Thanks for allowing me the clarification.
Your 'census' that says there are 600,000 homeless, apparently doesn't even count all the children, let alone the grown-ups, since it seems there are currently 1 million homeless kids in the inner cities alone. source.
59 - DrPat
Hmmm... It's considered polite to preface statements like "Frosty Wooldrige"'s with "IMHO". These are opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.
...how is it even possible to count the homeless on a census?
I can answer that question definitively, thanks to my checkered career. The US Census hires able-bodied men to clamber down riverbanks, up under freeways, through shrubbery and around alleys and railyards. All the places where the homeless make their temporary domiciles are counted. The "uncounted" error from this effort may be larger than for the count of those living under roofs, but it is not 99 in 100!
Please note that the census does also count homeless children, as well as people living under a relative's roof.
Having been involved in this effort in two census counts, I feel quite comfortable in dismissing inflated numbers as uninformed opinion (at best), or big lie/propaganda (at worst).
60 - Steve S
Hmmm... It's considered polite to preface statements like "Frosty Wooldrige"'s with "IMHO". These are opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.
Just learning here. The Right touts opinion as fact all the time. The Left should go by a different standard, a higher standard, you are correct. My mistake. I was unfamiliar with ole Frosty.
Having been involved in this effort in two census counts
I can tell you this, and yes, it is IMHO. I am 40 years old. I was homeless for 2 years when I was a minor. And this last census was the first census EVER, in which I was counted.
Anyway, From the National Homeless Foundation, which IMHO, I haven't a clue as to if it is opinion or fact, just a non-profit that people and the government get their facts from:
In most cases, homelessness is a temporary circumstance -- not a permanent condition. A more appropriate measure of the magnitude of homelessness is therefore the number of people who experience homelessness over time, not the number of "homeless people."
For instance, a national study of formerly homeless people found that the most common places people who had been literally homeless stayed were vehicles (59.2%) and makeshift housing, such as tents, boxes, caves, or boxcars (24.6%) (Link et al., 1995). This suggests that homeless counts may miss significant numbers of people who are homeless, including those living in doubled-up situations.
The found that, on a given night in October, 444,000 people (in 346,000 households) experienced homelessness - which translates to 6.3% of the population of people living in poverty. On a given night in February, 842,000 (in 637,000 households) experienced homelessness - which translates to almost 10% of the population of people living in poverty. Converting these estimates into an annual projection, the numbers that emerge are 2.3 million people (based on the October estimate) and 3.5 million people (based on the February estimate). This translates to approximately 1% of the U.S. population experiencing homelessness each year, 38 percent (October) to 39 percent (February) of them being children (Urban Institute 2000).
You can try to dissect my references all you want, but I do know one thing, if there are only 600,000 homeless in this country as you claim, then a full 30% of all the nations homeless must live in my small town.
Dr Pat, you cannot find an apartment complex out here that does not have 10 or more people sharing a one bedroom apartment, with most of them going from apartment to apartment like they are on holiday travel.
The report then goes on to state:
It is also important to note that this study was based on a national survey of service providers. Since not all people experiencing homelessness utilize service providers, the actual numbers of people experiencing homelessness are likely higher than those found in the study, Thus, we are estimating on the high end of the study's numbers: 3.5 million people, 39% of which are children.
This is where I got 35 million. I left out a period.
source
61 - DrPat
I see. I don't agree with the numbers, but I see the contention. To evaluate statistics, I often use the yardstick, "whose ox is gored?" In other words, who benefits by the acceptance of the statistic as fact?
The bar for acceptance of inflated homeless numbers (anyone who has "ever experienced homelessness") from an organization which benefits directly from the perception of vast uncounted armies of homeless "out there" is therefore much higher.
62 - Steve S
So conversely, we could say one who has a vested interest in shutting a program down, or cutting back on funding for a program, whether it may or may not be able to sustain such a cut, will also skew the data to their own benefit, thereby negating the relevance of what they promote, just as you insist on negating ALL the perceptions of the homeless out there, except when it reinforces what you, yourself believe and what you have seen when you went looking in the bushes.
63 - DrPat
Okay, this argument just went off the rails. To insist that statistics are not quite the same as facts, and require evaluation is not the same as rejecting them outright. To ask for proof rather than statement of opinion when a claim is contrary to my own experience is hardly the same as "negating the perceptions of the the homeless out there".
So - once more only - anecdote is not proof, and since they are your claims, the onus is on you to supply proof.
I reserve the right to evaluate your claims, as I do everything I read.
64 - Steve S
Okay, this argument just went off the rails.
Yet again. It was originally about taxes, but nobody seems to be offering input on that.
since they are your claims, the onus is on you to supply proof
Well, we are at an impasse. My comment about the homeless was in reference to welfare reform, as evidenced above. I was quoting from memory and said 35 million. Upon tracking down my source, it appears to be 3.5 million. I corrected myself.
It is your choice to disregard a non-profit charity as being motivated by financial greed if you wish. It is also my choice to disregard census data on the homeless as being accurate, since as I have pointed out, I have only been counted once in my life and I'm not even homeless. I know a great many hispanic people in my town who live in their cars, who live 10 or more to an apartment, or who move from friend to friend. None have ever been counted. It's my perception that what I have witnessed is not an anomaly. So we both reject each other's data. We should drop it then and let the topic go back to taxes.
Since many federal programs and financial aid is determined by census numbers, it would be a severe oversight to say that census numbers are above being co-opted for the purposes of greed, and solely apply that ideal to charitable non-profits anyway.
65 - RJ
"The number of homeless has shot up to 35 million."
Oh, yeah. That's credible...
66 - DrPat
RJ, six weeks or eight months down the road, some other wight will be quoting Steve S as the definite "I read it somewhere on the Internet" source for his contention that 35 Million children in America are homeless.
It's like playing Radio - every repetition inflates the numbers as desired, until there is neither fact nor sense involved.
When I said the argument had gone off the rails, I meant this triumphant ace Steve S played, which turned out to be a blank card with a smudge of chocolate on it. Whereupon, Steve S said that, well, the fact wasn't one, but the essence of his argument was still true!
Didn't work for Dan Rather either...
67 - Steve S
DrPat, you are assuming that liberals will be copying right wing tactics. Comment 66 sounds like a bio for Drudge.
68 - spiderleaf
Jumping into the fray with even more statistics in defense of Steve's position (and, please let's remember that he did indeed provide a source for his claim, after revising the figure, that is really all one can do isn't it? What type of empirical evidence is acceptable? Is it only the US Census, which most reputable agencies and NGO's agree is not comprehensive?)
From 2002 HUD report (via PBS):
The Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency in charge of housing issues, released the most complete report on homelessness in the U.S. The report, "The Forgotten Americans - Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve," revealed that some 11 million Americans have "worst case" housing needs, putting them at a high risk of homelessness. Many are either spending over half of their paycheck on housing -- often doubled up with others in overcrowded conditions -- or live in houses that are falling apart.
Now add this to the recent report regarding affordability of housing in US urban centers from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (I suppose they have an agenda because the people who work there only stay employed if housing is unaffordable?)
In only four of the nation's 3,066 counties can someone working full-time and earning federal minimum wage afford to pay rent and utilities on a one-bedroom apartment.
...
A two-bedroom rental is even more of a burden -- the typical worker must earn at least $15.37 an hour to pay rent and utilities... That's nearly three times the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
...
About 36 million homes in the United States are rented. Roughly 80 percent of renter homes are located in nearly 1,000 counties in which a family must work over 80 hours a week -- or more than two full-time jobs -- at minimum wage to afford the typical two-bedroom apartment, the coalition said.
The coalition's "housing wage" assumes that a family spends no more than 30 percent of its gross income on rent and utilities, since anything more is generally considered unaffordable by the government.
This would suggest that the figures from 2002 HUD released are still valid, if not increased.
And then we have the whole other group of homeless, Vets... consider this:
A 2003 Department of Veterans Affairs report estimates 313,000 homeless Vets.
CHALENG report
Now add that to the increasing numbers of homeless Vets coming back from Iraq in 2004 as well as all the other sources (gov't and NGO) that report similarly high numbers and we get awfully far away from the 600k in the census.
69 - spiderleaf
There is also the question of runaways and street kids. They are also homeless (or live many to a single unit)...
The most comprehensive study done in 1989 by the Government Accounting Office indicates 1.3 million kids are on the street each year. The Children’s Defense Fund cites approximately 1200 youth run away each day. An estimated 2.8 million youth living in the United States reported a runaway experience during the prior year (Research Triangle Institute 1995).
I could find many more examples, but I think it's your turn to refute the discussion with something other than just the Census figure.
(now back to taxes...)
70 - Steve S
Thank you spiderleaf.
I have to give credit to DrPat for one thing. He's made me look more into how the census counts poverty.
Here is how the census considers who is in poverty. They have 48 'thresholds of poverty'. If someone falls within the threshold, then they are considered poor.
A couple of paragraphs down, they give an example to illustrate their process. They define a family of THREE adults and TWO children, and show how to track down their threshold. It happens to be about 25,000. So if those 5 people live on more than 25k, they aren't counted as being in poverty. This does NOT fluctuate by geography. It's the same in California as it is in Wyoming.
What a freaking hoot. How can 5 people live on 25k and not be in poverty? If rent is 1,000 a month, that's practically 50% of their years pay right there. 13k left for food, transportation, clothing, health care, etc. for 5 people and they aren't counted as being in poverty.
This information isn't from a non-profit with 'ulterior motives'. This information is from the census itself. I can't believe it.
71 - Steve S
addendum - I realize that's about poverty and not homelessness, but I'm learning quite a bit about the census. It's pretty horribly wrong on a lot of things. I know it's used to determine how much aid goes to issues like homelessness, welfare, and it's used for economic indicators, etc. and the more I'm learning about it, the more problems I see with it. By keeping the numbers of the poor so unrealistically low, it makes the middle class look larger than it really is. Whether intentional or not, this can conceal a serious erosion in the middle class. Nobody'd know. (IMHO).
72 - Mike Kole
A couple of times now we have come back to taxes and how the one-size-fits-all manner of dealing with it doesn't work. Incomes are vastly different from Wyoming to Manhattan, as you point out Steve.
The thing that is never considered is that each expenditure is a matter of personal choice. Put two families of four in identical situations- same incomes, same houses, same schools, etc.- and you will still come out with one family having a stronger bottom line than the other, simply because of different decision making. That's one of the reasons I am opposed to outcome-based attempts at making level playing fields such as the progressive income tax. Everybody has different objectives and desires that lead to these choices.
The only thing I have no doubts about regarding statistics is that either side can make the stats say whatever they want them to.
73 - DrPat
In fiction, the concept of outcome-based efforts at achieving equality was brilliantly addressed in Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. The video is an adequate adaptation of the story, which, reductio ad absurdum, asks why, if we are determined to make everyone equal financially, we do not take the next step and level the physical and mental playing fields as well? After all, if my neighbor is smarter or more financially savvy (or more abstemious) than I, all the redistribution you care to institute will still not leave me equal to him in the long run.
In the slave-owner's mentality that informs the equalization effort of the graduated tax (as well as the welfare transfer payments that have derailed this discussion), no argument gets past that sense of entitlement to the mind, body and efforts of another.
I believe the reason for the drive "level the economic playing field" has much less to do with the poor and star-crossed victims of disaster than it has to do with percentages and power. As a bureaucrat, I take a certain percentage of the transferred funds to fuel the bureaucracy. Power comes from directing who shall keep what amount of money they have earned, and which equates to your life and freedom (as you pointed out in your original essay, Mike):
74 - Steve S
All I can say to that, DrPat, is that it is entirely based on a completely erroneous assumption as to what liberalism/progressivism is.
The video.....asks why, if we are determined to make everyone equal financially
Nobody is seeking that though. That is NOT the ideal of Progressivism.
no argument gets past that sense of entitlement
One thing that is wrong here, is that you are attempting to imply that the ideal of equality for all, is a form of entitlement. Progressivism is about equal opportunity for all. But that doesn't mean everybody needs the same dollar amount in the bank account.
level the economic playing field
It's called "Equal Opportunity For All", you are trying to twist these words and their meaning around. Someone who lives in a one bedroom apartment is entitled to the same quality of education as a person who lives in a 2 story house. There is nothing in the concept that says they both have to have the same salary.
Leveling what economic playing field? What ideology is promoting making everyone equal financially, and specifically how?
75 - Mike Kole
Come on, Steve. You can't pull of naivete on the graduated income tax. It doesn't do the job of making everyone income equal directly, but, if Jones makes $100k/yr and is taxed at a rate of 50%, while Smith makes $66k/yr and is taxed at a rate of 33%, how much difference is there in the outcome?
It may not be the ideal of Progressivism According to Steve, but it sure is the real life result.