Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 06:21:54 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How much does investing in education of less fortunate pay off?  (Read 1771 times)
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 06:36:11 PM
 #1

I just read this:
http://politic365.com/2011/12/15/excuse-me-im-that-poor-black-kid/

and AFAIK, tendency for violence and uselessness are usually connected to lack of education. What do you think? Providing links is encouraged, as usual Smiley

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
1481437314
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437314

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437314
Reply with quote  #2

1481437314
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481437314
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437314

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437314
Reply with quote  #2

1481437314
Report to moderator
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 07:22:42 PM
 #2

So I'm in Chicago. A major perception here is that the corporatism/cronyism of city politicians is contributing to these problems. People in poorer neighborhoods like Pilsen (mainly hispanic) pay their property taxes, etc to the city. This money then gets put in a general fund and is used to develop and maintain areas elsewhere (in the well-connected "rich" part of the city) rather than improving the neighborhood it came from. On top of this, many property owners in Pilsen are unable to pay lawyers to explain the tax code to them and so are unaware of many exemptions, etc. The overall effect of this is draining wealth from the poorer neighborhood into the hands of well-connected property developers.

Meanwhile, the people/organizations benefiting from the use of the public funds elsewhere (ie rise in property value) are able to build up wealth. They then start seeing the cheap property in Pilsin and begin buying that up, putting up more expensive housing (for "artists and college students") and forcing out whoever was living on the property to begin with (who never got to use their tax money to invest in projects that would improve lives of themselves and their children). Thus the process of gentrification begins.

So, amongst many, the current attitude is that "community organizing" is the way to go. Larger governments just keep fucking these people over.

Now, what to do about Englewood? I have no idea. That place is crazy. I've experienced first hand that if you're white and go there, cops and drug dealers and everyone hanging outside the liquor stores give you shit until you leave. I've been told by a first hand source you gotta bring your piece with to take out the trash at night (to scare off the crackheads walking at you down the alley and shit) and avoid certain entrance ramps onto I-290 (people pop out of the bushes and carjack you). It's not that these are bad people, they just live in a fucked up environment and need to be willing to do certain shit to survive.

*edit, second hand account is lawndale not englewood
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 07:44:37 PM
 #3

Hood to hood chicago (not englewood but some projects at 22nd and state, these got torn down a couple years ago):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXnjqJ9kAg

Gangland about the SD's (pilsen):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7b0GS51Tho&feature=related
Kilmyos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28

Free Market Anarchist


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 12:23:45 AM
 #4

So I'm in Chicago. A major perception here is that the corporatism/cronyism of city politicians is contributing to these problems. People in poorer neighborhoods like Pilsen (mainly hispanic) pay their property taxes, etc to the city. This money then gets put in a general fund and is used to develop and maintain areas elsewhere (in the well-connected "rich" part of the city) rather than improving the neighborhood it came from. On top of this, many property owners in Pilsen are unable to pay lawyers to explain the tax code to them and so are unaware of many exemptions, etc. The overall effect of this is draining wealth from the poorer neighborhood into the hands of well-connected property developers.

Meanwhile, the people/organizations benefiting from the use of the public funds elsewhere (ie rise in property value) are able to build up wealth. They then start seeing the cheap property in Pilsin and begin buying that up, putting up more expensive housing (for "artists and college students") and forcing out whoever was living on the property to begin with (who never got to use their tax money to invest in projects that would improve lives of themselves and their children). Thus the process of gentrification begins.

So, amongst many, the current attitude is that "community organizing" is the way to go. Larger governments just keep fucking these people over.

Now, what to do about Englewood? I have no idea. That place is crazy. I've experienced first hand that if you're white and go there, cops and drug dealers and everyone hanging outside the liquor stores give you shit until you leave. I've been told by a first hand source you gotta bring your piece with to take out the trash at night (to scare off the crackheads walking at you down the alley and shit) and avoid certain entrance ramps onto I-290 (people pop out of the bushes and carjack you). It's not that these are bad people, they just live in a fucked up environment and need to be willing to do certain shit to survive.

*edit, second hand account is lawndale not englewood

Politicians are the one fucking the poor over, they are spending their money on things that isn't needed.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 23, 2011, 02:26:04 AM
 #5

If you fund a school, tell kids what to think, teach when it's acceptable to hurt people and how to do it and then they do what you say you just need to mark it down as 'law enforcement' and not the violence it is, that's how violence is reduced by 'education'.

The state's violence is so huge and pervasive it doesn't even make sense to count incidents. Some guy grew pot in 2006, today they lock him in a cage, tomorrow they'll do the same, they are wrecking lives every minute. And the place where they preach the virtues of this behavior is called a school.

To say it all again, if you are hungry and take some food that's marked as a crime. If you grow some food and don't follow the rules guys (educated) will break into your house and that burglary will not be marked as a crime.

Stats from the government about the government as so deeply biased they nearly useless.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 08:43:30 AM
 #6

So... which of these posts have anything to do with my question? Cheesy

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 08:46:02 AM
 #7

If you fund a school, tell kids what to think, teach when it's acceptable to hurt people and how to do it and then they do what you say you just need to mark it down as 'law enforcement' and not the violence it is, that's how violence is reduced by 'education'.

I agree we can always have a better government and a better education system. Or, are you trying to tell us that we don't need an education system at all because it supports the current government system too much?

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
December 24, 2011, 02:02:04 AM
 #8

Well my basic message was that (anecdotally):
Government + cronyism -> misuse of tax revenue -> draining of more wealth from poor neighborhoods than gets put back.

In other words, it does not appear to work out (despite all the good intentions) according to the hypothesis of:
Government appropriates more money for education -> better schools, etc -> end the cycle of poverty

The two videos in my second post are to illustrate how fucked up it can get. Just "throwing money" at this problem is not going to work. It is a complex problem requiring a more complex solution than "more school funding."
Kilmyos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28

Free Market Anarchist


View Profile
December 24, 2011, 03:53:51 AM
 #9

FreeMoney hit the nail on the head...
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 25, 2011, 10:19:25 PM
 #10

FreeMoney hit the nail on the head...

while pointing at problems seems like a great accomplishment, I still didn't hear the real answer: Should we keep things as they are, but try to improve the education system, or should we remove government-sponsored education altogether? Or, should we do something else?

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
December 26, 2011, 09:38:05 PM
 #11

I think if academic achievement got you laid in high school, and was associated with the type of fame and money bestowed upon athletes and entertainers, we would have alot more people doing well in school. Colleges would send scouts out to the inner city schools to find the intellectual diamond-in-the-rough, etc. So besides structural problems, there are cultural factors at play as well.

FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 26, 2011, 11:56:43 PM
 #12

FreeMoney hit the nail on the head...

while pointing at problems seems like a great accomplishment, I still didn't hear the real answer: Should we keep things as they are, but try to improve the education system, or should we remove government-sponsored education altogether? Or, should we do something else?

I think the world would be better without violence. I'm not under any illusion that that is going to happen, but the right direction is to stop praising government violence as good. You can't have 'government education' without violence and the threat of.

I'm completely against coercive funding of anything. If it has more value than cost someone will buy it.

That said, I don't even think it's good to voluntarily fund an institution that makes kids (aka people) learn things against their will.

My 3yo has learned so much (walking, talking, and drawing to name a few) with zero coercion. No one is ever going to coerce him to learn anything. I expect he will learn things he doesn't enjoy as a means to his own desired ends. I'm sure there will be things that other people consider very important that he won't ever learn. He'll probably spend lots of time learning things that I don't think are important. That's fine because it's his time.

As far as details of what education will be like after the herding everyone to the same place is over I have no idea. That's a bigger question than "How will soup get made?" or "What will people do for fun next weekend?". It's worse than simply no one knowing the answer, even with full knowledge of everything the answer wouldn't fit in 10 million books.

If you want to participate though all you have to do is think of a way to turn stuff that people value less into stuff that people value more, they'll happily let you pocket some of the difference too.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 27, 2011, 11:09:00 AM
 #13

I think the world would be better without violence. I'm not under any illusion that that is going to happen, but the right direction is to stop praising government violence as good. You can't have 'government education' without violence and the threat of.

So, you don't agree that the places where you're more likely to get killed/robbed are the places that lack government education?

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 27, 2011, 11:30:50 AM
 #14

I think if academic achievement got you laid in high school, and was associated with the type of fame and money bestowed upon athletes and entertainers, we would have alot more people doing well in school.

Aaand we come back to investing money in success Cheesy

The biggest problem is that sports can easily be given an incentive because you need less imagination and more focus. You just say "run faster and get money" and the dude runs faster.

Making a good scientist is more complicated then that. You need to find talented students and reward them right away. Now, giving them a reward that doesn't make them lazy is the complicated part. From the top of my head, I'd say they could get more free time from education that does not concern them (like sports) and possibly giving them access to technology that gets them laid (like an earlier access to a driver's licence)

Entertainers are best left to their own devices, they know what they're doing Tongue

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 27, 2011, 11:38:08 AM
 #15

Damn, I just remember that interaction with the opposite sex impairs your mental skills. This is even more complicated then I thought :/

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 28, 2011, 07:34:00 AM
 #16

I think the world would be better without violence. I'm not under any illusion that that is going to happen, but the right direction is to stop praising government violence as good. You can't have 'government education' without violence and the threat of.

So, you don't agree that the places where you're more likely to get killed/robbed are the places that lack government education?

I'm more likely to be robbed/killed by someone with a government education than someone without.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 28, 2011, 05:49:45 PM
 #17

I'm more likely to be robbed/killed by someone with a government education than someone without.

Ooh, looks like someone lives in a fancy neighborhood Cheesy

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
December 28, 2011, 06:18:04 PM
 #18

I think the world would be better without violence. I'm not under any illusion that that is going to happen, but the right direction is to stop praising government violence as good. You can't have 'government education' without violence and the threat of.

So, you don't agree that the places where you're more likely to get killed/robbed are the places that lack government education?

I'm more likely to be robbed/killed by someone with a government education than someone without.

Theres alot more people with government education though, so that doesn't really say anything about a correlation between the education and violence. I'm more likely to be bit by a dog than a tiger, that doesn't mean dogs are more dangerous than tigers...

Another aspect of this is reeducation of people who have now obsolete skills. I'm no fan of Obama, but this quote has been taken endlessly out of context (I even saw a WSJ story doing it, and even more amazing, have heard "left wing" people rationalizing the out of context point):

Quote
The other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy, and what we have to do now -- and that's what this job council is all about -- is identifying where the jobs for the future are going to be; how do we make sure that there's a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist; how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity. We are on the right track. The key is figuring out how do we accelerate it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201106150011

I disagree with him that a "jobs council" will be able to successfully predict the future, but not necessarily that there should be no role of a government in supporting people while they retrain. This is especially true as more and more of the work that takes little training can be done easier/cheaper by machine. Also this is probably better handled at a state level.
bithobo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


Everybody's doing it


View Profile
December 28, 2011, 09:51:45 PM
 #19

Just to mention, I'm not talking about US economy, I don't even live in USA

Spare some bitcoin?
1Fw9ZHPEqKvPs3fcgx7My1Qa9qjF8WyCd6
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
December 29, 2011, 02:55:23 AM
 #20

I'm talking about the USA because thats what I'm most familiar with.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!