More Than Half Of American Schoolchildren Now Live In Poverty.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:13:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  More Than Half Of American Schoolchildren Now Live In Poverty.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: More Than Half Of American Schoolchildren Now Live In Poverty.  (Read 3550 times)
retromike22
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,428
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 17, 2015, 01:25:09 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/southern-education-foundation-children-poverty_n_6489970.html

For the first time, more than half of U.S. public school students live in low-income households, according to a new analysis from the Southern Education Foundation.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,741
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2015, 01:30:46 AM »

No surprise that The Freedom State is leading in this category while The Horriblest State is in last.

Though I believe I remember reading that a significant number of Vermont rural residents unschool their children. I know they lead the nation. That seems like a skewing factor in favor while the wealthy in much of the south (and probably NY/LA) all go to private schools while the religious middle class gets homeschooled. Admittedly, that's a bit anecdotal/based on stereotypes with the exception of VT, but it seems pretty accurate
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2015, 02:05:18 AM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)
Logged
Libertarian Socialist Dem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2015, 02:19:05 AM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

This, if only we could go back to having the parties divided based on class more so then culture.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2015, 02:27:22 AM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

This, if only we could go back to having the parties divided based on class more so then culture.

Obviously that would require Sanders or Warren instead of another Clinton.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,741
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2015, 02:38:05 AM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

This, if only we could go back to having the parties divided based on class more so then culture.

Obviously that would require Sanders or Warren instead of another Clinton.

I think that might actually hurt the cause considering the South has such a warped view of socialism, and Warren isn't exactly Ms. Southern Charm. You need a modern day Huey Long (but less fascist), but unfortunately, there are no Democrats left in the South.
Logged
Libertarian Socialist Dem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2015, 03:09:40 AM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

This, if only we could go back to having the parties divided based on class more so then culture.

Obviously that would require Sanders or Warren instead of another Clinton.

I think that might actually hurt the cause considering the South has such a warped view of socialism, and Warren isn't exactly Ms. Southern Charm. You need a modern day Huey Long (but less fascist), but unfortunately, there are no Democrats left in the South.

Schweitzer might have been the one to do it before he basically claimed that most southern men were closet cases.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,825
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2015, 01:33:12 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kSULMV09is
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2015, 01:36:02 PM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

This, if only we could go back to having the parties divided based on class more so then culture.

Obviously that would require Sanders or Warren instead of another Clinton.

I think that might actually hurt the cause considering the South has such a warped view of socialism, and Warren isn't exactly Ms. Southern Charm. You need a modern day Huey Long (but less fascist), but unfortunately, there are no Democrats left in the South.

Blacks. Of course that requires poor southern whites to recognize that they have good cause to align themselves with poor blacks, let alone middle-class blacks, on any issues.  
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2015, 01:36:38 PM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

Not necessarily. Many of these people don't want help.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2015, 01:52:07 PM »

As for the 'educational expert' shown in the video --

Motivation matters. Raw intelligence matters. Trust in well-meaning people matters. The means in which to apply what one learns matter.

Much of the rap that poor Hispanic kids and poor black kids could not learn well in school but the kids of Vietnamese refugees could do well ignores some basic reality: that the nearly-penniless children of Vietnamese refugees were heavily 'recruited' from families that had been middle-class or upper-class in Vietnam: government employees and business owners. Middle-class families usually have a non-prole culture that puts learning above entertainment, and being dispossessed and uprooted does not change that. See also Holocaust survivors.

So if parents want their kids to succeed in school they can insist upon quiet time without electronic entertainments even if those entertainments are benign in themselves. Parents themselves need to break away from the night clubs.     
Logged
Reginald
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 802
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2015, 02:48:59 PM »

Misleading, clickbaity headline as usual from Huffpo. First of all, this is just public schoolchildren. Second, the metric isn't perfect in determining poverty. From NYT:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't to say that the trend here isn't alarming, but it'd be nice to see some accuracy. Though I suppose the definition of poverty could be debated...
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2015, 03:04:56 PM »

Misleading, clickbaity headline as usual from Huffpo. First of all, this is just public schoolchildren. Second, the metric isn't perfect in determining poverty. From NYT:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't to say that the trend here isn't alarming, but it'd be nice to see some accuracy. Though I suppose the definition of poverty could be debated...


$44k for a family of four?  You'd need something to go wrong once and it would put the dent in even the most disciplined saver, not that you'd be in a good position to begin with.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2015, 03:15:55 PM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

Not necessarily. Many of these people don't want help.

Well when you put it that way...
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2015, 05:00:57 PM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

Not necessarily. Many of these people don't want help.

Sure they do.  And many of them had been voting Democratic their entire lives and still weren't seeing their conditions improve.  If neither of the parties are perceived to be protective of their financial interests, it is reasonable that they might vote on cultural or religious interests instead.

It's an instance where just welfare payments won't be enough (especially not the paltry amounts offered by the US government).  The jobs disappear as the market for their fossil fuels does also; they need to be retrained, and then they need new job opportunities pertinent to their training to be created in the areas, for these people to have a real shot at building an eventual sustainable economy.  Do you see that rapidly occurring under a government make-up of any kind?  Neither do I.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2015, 05:11:14 PM »

Misleading, clickbaity headline as usual from Huffpo. First of all, this is just public schoolchildren. Second, the metric isn't perfect in determining poverty. From NYT:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't to say that the trend here isn't alarming, but it'd be nice to see some accuracy. Though I suppose the definition of poverty could be debated...


$44k for a family of four?  You'd need something to go wrong once and it would put the dent in even the most disciplined saver, not that you'd be in a good position to begin with.

$44K doesn't go so far in New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington DC, or Honolulu as it does where families might rarely get $44K a year.

 
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2015, 05:25:24 PM »

This proves that West Virgina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida are the natural base of the progressive left, not the places Democrats have been jerking off to recently (Colorado, Virginia, etc.)

Not necessarily. Many of these people don't want help.

Sure they do.  And many of them had been voting Democratic their entire lives and still weren't seeing their conditions improve.  If neither of the parties are perceived to be protective of their financial interests, it is reasonable that they might vote on cultural or religious interests instead.

Obamacare provided healthcare to hundreds of thousands of people in coal country, many of whom never had it before. How did that go over again? Let's not pretend Democrats do nothing for the poor and spend all their time drafting hate crime laws for transgender feminists. The reason these voters switched was because they began to prioritize social/religious/cultural issues. However, the socially conservative populist voting bloc that used to be so influential is rapidly diminishing, being replaced with generic right wingers who have bought into the GOP's economic agenda as well.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2015, 05:44:19 PM »

Obamacare provided healthcare to hundreds of thousands of people in coal country, many of whom never had it before. How did that go over again? Let's not pretend Democrats do nothing for the poor and spend all their time drafting hate crime laws for transgender feminists. The reason these voters switched was because they began to prioritize social/religious/cultural issues. However, the socially conservative populist voting bloc that used to be so influential is rapidly diminishing, being replaced with generic right wingers who have bought into the GOP's economic agenda as well.

I don't pretend that at all, what I'm suggesting is that the Democratic platform, even if implemented fully, probably wouldn't be enough to tackle the endemic poverty in many Appalachian locations.  And yes, it's obvious that the GOP has been taken over by a not-so-fresh blend of evangelicals and Tea Partiers who accept trickle-down economics as sacred and proclaim government regulation of markets as an affront to God's plan.  It's only natural that the philosophy would have to be branded in a certain way to make it more palatable.  Subsidized health insurance isn't completely free, either, and many of these people prioritize their short-term financial interest above all else, so until we provide them with the infrastructure for new skills and jobs, the situation is not going to substantially improve.

In sum, do I think these people would be better served by voting Democratic?  Yes.  Do I blame them for thinking otherwise?  Not really.  Hypothetically, you have two sources of income for your household; one income from a coal plant job and one person on disability assistance (this would even be an improvement over some families' current conditions).  The Democrats attack environmentally harmful energy practices; the coal plant shuts down, maybe "because of Obamacare."  Whatever the actual situation might be, it's not hard to see how someone could come to the conclusion that the Democrats aren't working to protect their interests.

It's also helpful to bear in mind that many of them just stopped voting, and the turnout in these areas was never good in the first place.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2015, 06:00:19 PM »

After observing the data to confirm or refute Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas" article earlier last year, poor people are still voting overwhelmingly Democratic -- the problem is that "middle class" Caucasians are voting Republican. Of course we looked at a national trend so obviously poorer people from cities and metropolitan areas inflate that number, but not so much that there aren't a sizable number of poorer people voting for Democrats elsewhere.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2015, 08:12:15 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/southern-education-foundation-children-poverty_n_6489970.html

For the first time, more than half of U.S. public school students live in low-income households, according to a new analysis from the Southern Education Foundation.

Interesting.  They use eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch as a proxy for measuring poverty, but since they're using it consistently over time, it's a reasonable measure.  The linked article says that the percentage of schoolchildren from poor households has grown steadily from about 32% in 1989 to about 42% in 2006 to about 48% in 2011 to about 51% today.  The recession started in the last quarter of 2008 but jobs started coming back in 2010 and the unemployment rate has steadily declined since then.  I guess that not all the jobs that are "coming back" are really coming back.  Many of those old jobs have moved overseas.  Of course, my stocks are improving for about seven quarters in a row, and our household income has been increasing for several years, so I suppose you could argue that this isn't affecting everyone, at least not directly.  That makes it easy to ignore.

The article makes mention of growing income inequality.  I have mentioned on this forum for several years that this is becoming a major problem.  Something like 25% of us are going to be fine.  We weather the storms; we're connected; we know how to work the system; we know our children will be okay.  The majority--and now a real majority according to this report--may not be fine.  160 million out of 300 million grown up scrapping on the other side of the digital divide will be a real problem for all of us, at least in the long run.  What's to be done?  Neither Obama nor the current congress has the balls to address this.  Will we continue to ignore the problem of widespread income inequality?
 
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2015, 08:22:59 PM »

This affirms my belief that the secular increase in K-12 education costs is as much about the increasing share of children who are more expensive to educate (in terms of requiring free/subsdized meals, having various fees waived, needing more attention from specialists) as it is about more expensive input costs like healthcare and benefits for school employees.

People like Krazen complain about schools having too many "administrators" while ignoring that many of those non-teachers are there to address the needs of poor children who the Krazens obviously cannot abide having any of Muh Tax Dollars going toward.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2015, 09:49:45 PM »

$44k for a family of four?  You'd need something to go wrong once and it would put the dent in even the most disciplined saver, not that you'd be in a good position to begin with.

Depends on the cost of living where you live. Around here, it would be possible for a family of four to live on that and even put some small savings away, assuming they had no existing debt.  They'd be living more frugally than many would care to, but not superfrugally.  The crunch time would come when it was time for college for the kids, but even there, assuming the kids do the first couple of years at a community college, it should be possible to do that without saddling the kids or the parents with excessive levels of student loans.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2015, 10:36:29 PM »

This affirms my belief that the secular increase in K-12 education costs is as much about the increasing share of children who are more expensive to educate (in terms of requiring free/subsdized meals, having various fees waived, needing more attention from specialists) as it is about more expensive input costs like healthcare and benefits for school employees.

Having been a substitute teacher and having seen about every aspect of education except for janitorial work, doing food service, or working in the school office... I can assure you that the free or subsidized meals pay for themselves in educational quality. It is far easier to teach kids who don't feel hunger pangs. Just about anything that gets better educational results has served me as a teacher -- even if 'only' a substitute. There's no techno-fix for hunger (also inadequate sleep, parents who show inadequate concern for their kids' learning, child abuse and neglect, or an anti-intellectual mass culture). There are manifestly good reasons for very rich parents sending their kids to expensive boarding schools whose dormitories are technologically advanced only to the age of electric lights. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Education has comparatively few administrators for the number of teachers. As a sub I have been basically an actor... and when you think about it, teaching is basically acting. I am not an effective social worker.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2015, 10:51:50 PM »

This affirms my belief that the secular increase in K-12 education costs is as much about the increasing share of children who are more expensive to educate (in terms of requiring free/subsdized meals, having various fees waived, needing more attention from specialists) as it is about more expensive input costs like healthcare and benefits for school employees.

People like Krazen complain about schools having too many "administrators" while ignoring that many of those non-teachers are there to address the needs of poor children who the Krazens obviously cannot abide having any of Muh Tax Dollars going toward.
Other than cafeteria employees and janitors, what critical non-teachers are you referring to? Somehow I doubt that the below is a result of needing to hire more janitors and cafeteria ladies:

Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2015, 11:04:36 PM »

This affirms my belief that the secular increase in K-12 education costs is as much about the increasing share of children who are more expensive to educate (in terms of requiring free/subsdized meals, having various fees waived, needing more attention from specialists) as it is about more expensive input costs like healthcare and benefits for school employees.

People like Krazen complain about schools having too many "administrators" while ignoring that many of those non-teachers are there to address the needs of poor children who the Krazens obviously cannot abide having any of Muh Tax Dollars going toward.
Other than cafeteria employees and janitors, what critical non-teachers are you referring to? Somehow I doubt that the below is a result of needing to hire more janitors and cafeteria ladies:



I'm referring to the specialists who handle various learning disabilities, ESL students and various other learning accommodations.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.