The Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

[they don't love you like i love you]

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child-poverty/#0

Ugh. This is quite telling and depressing. Very well done piece, the only thing I don't like is the ending sets up a false dichotomy and implies we can only do one of the four proposed solutions, when in fact we can (and should) be doing all four.

Interestingly I found out from this after it was shared by a Google software engineer.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What in the f**k is this manner of presentation? Is CNN experimenting with the "child's picture book" format of dispensing news?

[courts]

What in the f**k is this manner of presentation? Is CNN experimenting with the "child's picture book" format of dispensing news?

most children are more sophisticated than the adults still watching cable news

[memphis]

CNN has really gone to crap with their latest redesign. Inksing USA Today is now a more legit, readable source of info.

[King]

One thing I do admire about FOXNews and DrudgeReport is their refusal to give into internet trends when it comes to website re-designing.

And, of course, Dave Leip.

[Beet]

All I get is a message to "use the arrows to advance through the story" and an info graphic telling me that Silicon Valley is one if the richest places in the country, but when I click on the arrow, nothing happens.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

As bad as it is there, it's still not as much disparity as some southern counties. I recall some in Louisiana being pretty bad. And that's entirely locals entirely divided by race. This is horrible, but it's just getting called out due it's famous nane. Thus is an issue nearly everywhere in America.

[pbrower2a]

Poverty hurts. Extreme wealth no more enriches the lives of those who are poor near the super-rich  than the shower that my neighbor takes cleans me.

[RFayette]

Besides the awful way of presenting the content, I did think the message was pretty good. 

I am no fan of direct cash payments, but I definitely support expanding the Earned Income Tax credit, an incremental increase in the minimum wage (not a big fan of a sudden increase due to decrease in employment as seen here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf ). 

But I think the key is education, education, education!      In particular, while raising education spending in and of itself doesn't necessarily help, what would help (in my opinion) is a significant increase in teacher pay and a big, big increase in qualifications required to teach.  School education departments need to have engineering-like GPA averages and majoring in the specific subject should be required to teach math or science. 

On a side note, I think it would be much, much worse to be poor in Silicon Valley than say, Appalachia.  At least in poorer areas the cost of living is lower and people don't have to compete against geniuses if they do manage to climb the upward ladder and get a degree (an upward-climbing poor child living in Silicon Valley has to compete against hordes of well-educated, privileged kids with laser-like academic focus on academics, whereas in Appalachia a degree can situate one relatively high on the economic hierarchy).

[Mr. Smith]

Besides the awful way of presenting the content, I did think the message was pretty good. 

I am no fan of direct cash payments, but I definitely support expanding the Earned Income Tax credit, an incremental increase in the minimum wage (not a big fan of a sudden increase due to decrease in employment as seen here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf ). 

But I think the key is education, education, education!      In particular, while raising education spending in and of itself doesn't necessarily help, what would help (in my opinion) is a significant increase in teacher pay and a big, big increase in qualifications required to teach.  School education departments need to have engineering-like GPA averages and majoring in the specific subject should be required to teach math or science. 

On a side note, I think it would be much, much worse to be poor in Silicon Valley than say, Appalachia.  At least in poorer areas the cost of living is lower and people don't have to compete against geniuses if they do manage to climb the upward ladder and get a degree (an upward-climbing poor child living in Silicon Valley has to compete against hordes of well-educated, privileged kids with laser-like academic focus on academics, whereas in Appalachia a degree can situate one relatively high on the economic hierarchy).

As someone with residency in both areas, I do not think either is better or worse given that:

- In Appalchia you need a damn car to get around, that adds a lot of wear and tear

- There's no competition because there are no jobs at all, you'll be lucky for even a gas station job,...not the case in the Silicon. A good degree is practically diddly squat

- The food may be cheaper in Appalchia, but it's certainly less likely to be as healthy

What's a low living expense if you don't have a job and the populace still think you're lazy, therefore good luck with getting much help.

Then again, what's so great about the garage or treated well for homelessness and many jobs when it's competitive and the prices are astronomical?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I think the bit on the homeless family drove the point well that yeah it's worse there than in Appalachia, both parents were employed full time and not at some minimum wage jobs either, but they still couldn't afford housing. Wouldn't be a problem in a much lower cost of living area.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the bit on the homeless family drove the point well that yeah it's worse there than in Appalachia, both parents were employed full time and not at some minimum wage jobs either, but they still couldn't afford housing. Wouldn't be a problem in a much lower cost of living area.

Well, the federal government doesn't take into account cost of living, so they aren't doing sh**t for people who can't possibly afford reasonable housing in the bay area, but their income isn't poor by Applachia standards. A typical 2 bedroom house in the bay area might cost $1 million to buy or $4000 a month to rent. You could live like a king for that money in Applachia.

[Mechaman]

Wow BRTD, this was actually a very interesting article.

I do agree that a conjunction of all four of these is best.  Even if we added all of those costs together they would still be well short of the $500 billion we currently spend on poverty relief.  Of course this will likely not happen anytime soon because:

a) muh military dollars
b) muh money and taxes
c) muh lazy minorities
d) muh poor corporations
e) muh entitlements
f) muh standard of living

Okay, that's enough for now, but you get the picture.  .More to the point many people, including many liberals, have got this entitlement attitude about the "Cost of Living".  The "Cost of Living" is so high in those areas because that is the price you pay for enlightenment and "good living".  Well that might help elitists sleep at night, but for the people who earn only $30,000 a year to provide for themselves and possibly others in places where rent for even one bedroom one bathroom apartments cost thousands of dollars a month that is hard comfort.

Like I commented elsewhere, anti-poverty efforts need to be done in concert with each other.  However, I am not entirely unconvinced that we can't actually reverse the rise in costs themselves.  We might consider some zoning and rent law reforms (I don't think it's a Randian stretch to conclude that some of our laws might be redundant or needless excess or punitive towards new entrants (especially in regard to some rent control policies)) that could help lower the overall market price of housing mortgages and rents (not to engage in a "What if our enemies might be right?" exercise).

If only Republicans had DC Al Fines in Congress and not Ted Cruzs.

[pbrower2a]

Besides the awful way of presenting the content, I did think the message was pretty good. 

I am no fan of direct cash payments, but I definitely support expanding the Earned Income Tax credit, an incremental increase in the minimum wage (not a big fan of a sudden increase due to decrease in employment as seen here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf ). 

But I think the key is education, education, education!      In particular, while raising education spending in and of itself doesn't necessarily help, what would help (in my opinion) is a significant increase in teacher pay and a big, big increase in qualifications required to teach.  School education departments need to have engineering-like GPA averages and majoring in the specific subject should be required to teach math or science. 

On a side note, I think it would be much, much worse to be poor in Silicon Valley than say, Appalachia.  At least in poorer areas the cost of living is lower and people don't have to compete against geniuses if they do manage to climb the upward ladder and get a degree (an upward-climbing poor child living in Silicon Valley has to compete against hordes of well-educated, privileged kids with laser-like academic focus on academics, whereas in Appalachia a degree can situate one relatively high on the economic hierarchy).

But California is toward the bottom in educational achievement. K-12 education has been bad in California since Proposition 13 gutted property taxes.  California education prepares one to live in Alabama -- not California.

I was looking at getting a teaching credential in California... until I found that California teachers typically qualify for subsidized housing!

[RFayette]

Besides the awful way of presenting the content, I did think the message was pretty good. 

I am no fan of direct cash payments, but I definitely support expanding the Earned Income Tax credit, an incremental increase in the minimum wage (not a big fan of a sudden increase due to decrease in employment as seen here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf ). 

But I think the key is education, education, education!      In particular, while raising education spending in and of itself doesn't necessarily help, what would help (in my opinion) is a significant increase in teacher pay and a big, big increase in qualifications required to teach.  School education departments need to have engineering-like GPA averages and majoring in the specific subject should be required to teach math or science. 

On a side note, I think it would be much, much worse to be poor in Silicon Valley than say, Appalachia.  At least in poorer areas the cost of living is lower and people don't have to compete against geniuses if they do manage to climb the upward ladder and get a degree (an upward-climbing poor child living in Silicon Valley has to compete against hordes of well-educated, privileged kids with laser-like academic focus on academics, whereas in Appalachia a degree can situate one relatively high on the economic hierarchy).

But California is toward the bottom in educational achievement. K-12 education has been bad in California since Proposition 13 gutted property taxes.  California education prepares one to live in Alabama -- not California.

I was looking at getting a teaching credential in California... until I found that California teachers typically qualify for subsidized housing!

Inland/SoCal/Sacramento schools are probably quite bad outside of Orange County and other rich suburbs, I agree.

But the Bay Area has immensely competitive, top-tier schools.  One chemistry competition I competed in, the qualifying score for the next round in my state was 40/60 but was 59/60 in California IIRC.  To excel in those areas is extremely hard.