Do Democrats Destroy Cities?

[TSA]

http://www.scragged.com/articles/democrat-disaster-cities

Some time back, CNN quoted a politician and asked who said it:

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."

Every politician talks about poverty because it's become a serious issue - regardless of morality, our many entitlement programs are taking our society down. There is also a human cost. The US Census Bureau says that nearly a third of the residents of Detroit and Buffalo live in poverty as the government defines it. This is such a waste of human potential that both liberals and conservatives agree that Something Should Be Done.

Nobody claims to be pro-poverty, but if you ask for solutions, ideas break down along party lines. Liberals want to increase taxes to give more to the poor, conservatives want to create opportunities and nudge the poor into jobs by cutting welfare as Pres. Clinton did.

Liberals and conservatives have thundered rhetoric at each other for years, but we finally have some facts. CNN gave the US Census rankings for cities with the most poverty and showed how long these cities have been run by Democrats:

Poverty
Rank City Democrat Since
1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL forever
6 St. Lewis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907
Five of our poorest cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years. The two other cities on the list, Miami, FL and El Paso, TX have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.

Correlation is not Causation

The fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it. Fortunately, sociologists and economists have studied some of our older cities long enough to figure out what's going on. We now know why Democratic policies lead to poverty.

Two Harvard economists described the "Curley Effect," named after Mayor James Curley of Boston who was elected to Boston's Board of Aldermen in 1904 despite being in prison on a fraud conviction when the election was held.

Mayor Curley showed Democrats how to win elections by taxing productive people and channeling the proceeds to less well-off groups. This bought Irish votes. As taxes went higher, productive citizens who tended to vote Republican fled to the suburbs, which tipped the balance further and further in favor of Democratic candidates.

In cities like Baltimore and Detroit, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1 or more. Is it any wonder that they've become single-party cesspools with no hope for change?

Driving productive citizens away may be good politics but it isn't good economics. 100 years ago when Henry Ford introduced the Model T, Detroit was the "place to be" for ambitious entrepreneurs. Tens of thousands of blacks were drawn from the South to fill well-paying jobs in the industrial North. After years of liberal misrule, Detroit has fallen so far that "black flight" has become common and major parts of the city are turning back into wilderness.

Baltimore hasn't suffered quite as badly, but it, too, shows the damage done by Democratic policies. In 1950, Baltimore's median income was 7% above the national average; in 2011, after 48 years of Democrat misrule, it's 22% below.

Boston, where the Curley effect originated, was in worse shape in 1980 than Baltimore is now, although it never got as bad as Detroit or Newark. In 1980, Boston's population had fallen 30% in the preceding 30 years and its crime rate was higher than Baltimore's today. Now, Boston is booming and crime has dropped.

What turned it around? Did Republicans take over city hall? Not exactly; state voters trimmed the excess taxes and productive people moved back in.

Massachusetts voters finally had enough and adopted a Proposition which forced Boston to cut taxes by 75%. Just as California's Proposition 13 cut taxes enough to revive San Francisco and Oakland, people returned to Boston. Its population rose 10% since 1980 and its crime rate is now 25% lower than Baltimore's.

Alas, tax reform seldom comes from within. In Baltimore's election last Sept. 13, the incumbent, who'd promised an inconsequential tax cut of 2% spread over 9 years, won re-election just as a classic big-city Democrat won the Mayor's office in Washington, DC.

Turnarounds in Boston, San Francisco, and Oakland couldn't come from within because the Democratic political machine had too much muscle after so many years of robbing the cities and driving away affluent voters. It took statewide initiatives to slash tax rates so that the cities could survive.

These turnarounds happened in spite of the best efforts of the Democratic political machines. The positive effects of slashing tax rates after years of boosting taxes "to benefit the poor" and the staunch Democrat opposition to such proven common sense demonstrates that the Curley effect is alive and well.

Taxing the productive to buy votes from government employees and the unproductive is good politics - it supported Democratic machines for decades on end - but it wrecks societies where Curley machines become entrenched. Even though Democrats raise taxes in the name of helping minorities and the less well off, the latest census showed that minorities are leaving high tax states for places with lower taxes and fewer social programs but more jobs.

By the way, the quote about forcing the poor out of poverty which opened this article? It was from that arch right-winger Benjamin Franklin.

The trouble, as Franklin clearly foresaw, is that most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. The heavy lifting of growing up, taking responsibility, and doing it yourself is just too much work for anyone to do it if they don't have to, as any parent knows.

[boutons_deux]

what bullshit, from TSA, of course

[Nbadan]

Correlation is not Causation


The fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it.

:rollin

[TSA]

Excellent rebuttals from both of you.

[clambake]

i spent a month in el paso one day.

[tlongII]

Obviously true.

[ChumpDumper]

So the article says no.

OK.

[Nbadan]

Excellent rebuttals from both of you.

It's about what we usually get from you...but if you seriously want to debate this then do a little research about both cities and how foreign trade agreements like NAFTA doomed cities like Detroit...

[TSA]

It's about what we usually get from you...but if you seriously want to debate this then do a little research about both cities and how foreign trade agreements like NAFTA doomed cities like Detroit...

I'll give you Detroit but you can't claim all other cities also went down the shitter due to outsourcing can you?

I'm more interested in discussing the Curley Effect.

[vy65]

Several of those cities suffered because of the departure of American manufacturing. You can't really blame that on democratic or republican politicians.

[pgardn]

i spent a month in el paso one day.

seems like it in the summer.

[Nbadan]

Several of those cities suffered because of the departure of American manufacturing. You can't really blame that on democratic or republican politicians.

The Detroit economy was all manufacturing...yes, manufacturing jobs were lost in all cities, but not at the same propensity as those which were lost in Detroit...it, and poor decision making by the few US auto makers that stayed..while the Japanese invested billions on making their cars super reliable the US auto manufactures continued to tailor to a shrinking demographic...

[TDMVPDPOY]

The Detroit economy was all manufacturing...yes, manufacturing jobs were lost in all cities, but not at the same propensity as those which were lost in Detroit...it, and poor decision making by the few US auto makers that stayed..while the Japanese invested billions on making their cars super reliable the US auto manufactures continued to tailor to a shrinking demographic...

same shit is happenning down here with the american australian branches, continue to build big muscle ugly fkn cars nobody wants to buy, only reason these clowns still in business is because of govt handouts and fleet cars keeping them in business, while the general consumer has move on to more fuel efficient and reliable cars...

[boutons_deux]

with the exception of El Paso and Miami, they're all rust belt, cold-belt cities that got hit by corporate (Repug/CoC)-driven globalization, destruction and/or export of jobs, and migration to the sun belt states.

iow, the article is right-wing bullshit propaganda, a LIE that Palin-brained idiots like vy and tsa suck down as Bible-truth (itself a bunch of marketing spin and fairy tales).

[rascal]

Republicans destroy states, the Republican south is the poorest region of the country.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans destroy states, the Republican south is the poorest region of the country.

Right-Wing Media Twist The Facts On Right-To-Work States

Studies Show Right-To-Work States Have Lower Wages And Benefits

• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.

• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in our regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions. [EPI, 2/17/11 (http://epi.3cdn.net/a39019fdac5ee92a28_s8m6b9f8x.pdf)]

And Right-To-Work Laws Do Not Always Boost Economic Growth

Oklahoma "Saw No Improvement In Its Unemployment Rate After Passing Right-To-Work ... The Number Of New Companies Coming Into The State Fell By One-Third In the Decade" Since The Law Was Passed.

Unfortunately, Oklahoma saw no improvement in its unemployment rate after passing right-to-work: its manufacturing sector shrank dramatically, and the number of new companies coming into the state fell by one-third in the decade following adoption of the labor statute. And multiple statistically scientific analyses have concluded that right-to-work has utterly failed to enhance job growth in the state.

"Right-To-Work May Undermine Economic Growth By Restricting Consumer Demand."

If states rely on wage-cutting right-to-work laws as a strategy for attracting outside manufacturers, they would undermine wage standards in both manufacturing and other industries, which could inadvertently hamstring job growth by restricting aggregate local economic demand.

"There Is No Significant Difference In Capital Formation Or Employment Rates" Between States With Right-To-Work Laws And Those Without Them.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/05/19/right-wing-media-twist-the-facts-on-right-to-wo/179798

the only advantage in right-to-work-for-less states is more profit for the employers.

[TSA]

"It’s no secret that a major component to democratic policies is to enlarge the number of citizens that rely on government handouts. This is accomplished by depressing the economy, creating new entitlement programs or by changing qualifying requirements for entitlements already in place. Regardless of the approach and the “save society” rhetoric, it always boils down to taxing productive members of society and then redistributing that money to the less productive or to the outright unproductive.

Those that receive something for nothing, in theory, get used to their situation. They want it, or better yet for the politicians, they need it to continue and will then re-elect the re-distributors. There’s no saving society. How can there be if you’re intentionally depressing the economy to create more dependency? That is a sales pitch. And there’s no genuine attempt at improvement for the individual and his or her situation. Again, how can there be when you re-define or create new programs that allow for or actually promote levels of unproductive behavior? It is money shuffling and nothing more. You and I know it as buying votes. This is all well and good for the politicians but over the longer term, buying votes creates significant problems for society."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"It’s no secret that a major component to democratic policies is to enlarge the number of citizens that rely on government handouts. This is accomplished by depressing the economy, creating new entitlement programs or by changing qualifying requirements for entitlements already in place. Regardless of the approach and the “save society” rhetoric, it always boils down to taxing productive members of society and then redistributing that money to the less productive or to the outright unproductive.

Those that receive something for nothing, in theory, get used to their situation. They want it, or better yet for the politicians, they need it to continue and will then re-elect the re-distributors. There’s no saving society. How can there be if you’re intentionally depressing the economy to create more dependency? That is a sales pitch. And there’s no genuine attempt at improvement for the individual and his or her situation. Again, how can there be when you re-define or create new programs that allow for or actually promote levels of unproductive behavior? It is money shuffling and nothing more. You and I know it as buying votes. This is all well and good for the politicians but over the longer term, buying votes creates significant problems for society."

It's no secret that this shit is partisan drivel. Its full of the tpyical buzz words and ideological nonsense.

entitlement
rely of government
they want to depress teh economy
tax productive members (job creators)
redistribute money
something for nothing
improvement of the individual
buying votes

You might as well jerk off for as much insight it provides for a 'conservative' or anyone else for that matter.

[vy65]

The Detroit economy was all manufacturing...yes, manufacturing jobs were lost in all cities, but not at the same propensity as those which were lost in Detroit...it, and poor decision making by the few US auto makers that stayed..while the Japanese invested billions on making their cars super reliable the US auto manufactures continued to tailor to a shrinking demographic...

Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and St. Louis are/were a part of the Rust Belt.

[pgardn]

"It’s no secret that a major component to democratic policies is to enlarge the number of citizens that rely on government handouts. This is accomplished by depressing the economy, creating new entitlement programs or by changing qualifying requirements for entitlements already in place.

This is like Boutons saying the Republicans strive to create a permanent underclass.

Its the extreme elements in both parties that demonize the mainstream.

All of the rhetoric that eschews "we know what you really want evil bastards", would lead to a dysfunctional country. I refuse to believe that whole parties really want a dysfunctional society.

[TSA]

It's no secret that this shit is partisan drivel. Its full of the tpyical buzz words and ideological nonsense.

entitlement
rely of government
they want to depress teh economy
tax productive members (job creators)
redistribute money
something for nothing
improvement of the individual
buying votes

You might as well jerk off for as much insight it provides for a 'conservative' or anyone else for that matter.

Here is some Harvard drivel for you.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/curley_effect_1.pdf

[boutons_deux]

This is like Boutons saying the Republicans strive to create a permanent underclass.

Its the extreme elements in both parties that demonize the mainstream.

All of the rhetoric that eschews "we know what you really want evil bastards", would lead to a dysfunctional country. I refuse to believe that whole parties really want a dysfunctional society.

do you have ANY evidence to the contrary from Repug propaganda, bills, laws?

America IS a dysfunctional country, and the 1%/VRWC/Repugs don't give a shit.

[RandomGuy]

I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it.


You would have to work hard to find a lot of Democrats that disagree with that.

Sorry, but that isn't a "right wing" idea, and to think that Democrats disagree with it is a giant strawman.

Such logical fallacies are, however, par for the course in most conservative op-eds about Democrats.

Demonize, demonize, demonize.

What I as a Democrat favor:

Welfare as a temporary assistance. I favor the work and training requirements for getting it.
Food stamps. Again, if you don't keep people fed it is hard for kids to develop normally, especially pregnant women.

What needs to be added to the mix:
Daycare to allow more people to work.
Paid sick days to allow people to call in sick when then need to and not lose income.
Better education in poor areas. Triple pay for teachers in poor schools, probably on the order of quintupling that.

Better access to trade schools, and college for poorer kids, with additional programs to shore up the academically weak.


All of this is geared to getting more people to work and for better pay.

[RandomGuy]

Here is some Harvard drivel for you.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/curley_effect_1.pdf

Already read it.

It doesn't quite support the OP's thesis as much as you think it does, sorry.

[RandomGuy]

The fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

and

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Take your pick which one you want to drop that statement into.

[RandomGuy]

of course, Detroits decline couldn't possibly be because of declining US manufacturing, and rise of Japan's automotive industry.

Nah. It must be the "liberal misrule".

More failed "reasoning" from a shitty op-ed.

A misleading over-simplification supported by something that sounds science-y, but doesn't really say as much as the author and OP hopes it does.

Pah.

[TSA]

You would have to work hard to find a lot of Democrats that disagree with that.

Sorry, but that isn't a "right wing" idea, and to think that Democrats disagree with it is a giant strawman.

Such logical fallacies are, however, par for the course in most conservative op-eds about Democrats.

Demonize, demonize, demonize.

What I as a Democrat favor:

Welfare as a temporary assistance. I favor the work and training requirements for getting it.
Food stamps. Again, if you don't keep people fed it is hard for kids to develop normally, especially pregnant women.

What needs to be added to the mix:
Daycare to allow more people to work.
Paid sick days to allow people to call in sick when then need to and not lose income.
Better education in poor areas. Triple pay for teachers in poor schools, probably on the order of quintupling that.

Better access to trade schools, and college for poorer kids, with additional programs to shore up the academically weak.


All of this is geared to getting more people to work and for better pay.

All very good ideas.

[BradLohaus]

Aren't there quite a few nice Detroit suburbs? It's not like the whole metro area died because of the disastrous trade policies. IIRC, GM wanted to move their main HQ to one of them but were told no as a condition of the bailout.

What major cities have Republican mayors anyway? Seems like they're all majority-minority or they are bastions of left wing whites.

[BradLohaus]

If you want kids to do better in school you don't need to throw money at these education programs. Encourage two parent households. But the Dems will never back that as a group because that goes against their base, and it's sexist and patriarchal.

[RandomGuy]

All very good ideas.

Thanks.

All of my critiques said:

Punitive wealth re-distribution does force people out of cities, especially within a country. Those kinds of policies were, and are, stupid.

Labor is too mobile to stay in a city that has tax rates that are too high.

THAT said, cities are complex, and their interactions with people, jobs, and services within an economic union as large and diverse are more than a little hard to qualify. The study posted did do a fair job at attempting to quantify the affect that I could tell without re-running their data and equations, but even that didn't seem to control for a host of other factors, and made some rather obvious unsupported assertions.

I would though, be very skeptical of any attempt to apply the experience of cities to that of nations.

It is far, far harder for people to move between countries simply because of tax policies, and that is where any such analogy would fail. I will grant that people, especially very wealthy, can and do occasionally switch countries, but from what I understand this is rare.

[RandomGuy]

If you want kids to do better in school you don't need to throw money at these education programs. Encourage two parent households. But the Dems will never back that as a group because that goes against their base, and it's sexist and patriarchal.

Nonsense. I am all for two parent households. We should have more of them, and almost all Democrats would support that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0128755f8089970c-450wi

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/52167a746bb3f71b4e000000/meet-the-rogue-county-clerk-whos-handing-out-dozens-of-gay-marriage-licenses-in-new-mexico.jpg

[RandomGuy]

If you want kids to do better in school you don't need to throw money at these education programs. Encourage two parent households. But the Dems will never back that as a group because that goes against their base, and it's sexist and patriarchal.

Seriously though, the available research suggests that throwing money into teachers salaries is a very excellent way of improving education.

How the world’s best-performing schools come out on top
(Pdf link here) http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-on-top/#sthash.PDYa6PtV.dpuf

Teacher salary was ranked as one of THE chief factors. It attracts, and keeps, the kinds of people who make effective teachers, and is simply the best free-market way to get talent.

Yes, having two parents helps too, but it is far easier to simply raise teacher salaries than to dictate some desired moral or societal outcome.

[BradLohaus]

I found that Ft. Worth and Indianapolis have an (R) mayor. Even that surprised me. I couldn't find one in the other cities I looked up.

Saying 2 parent families are great and legalizing gay marriage doesn't do anything to slow down divorce. And given the past few decades, it looks like the best way to stop out of wedlock births isn't legal abortion or birth control; what works best is what people used for centuries: shame. Maybe Hillary will put that on her platform.

I couldn't get the Pdf link to work. But I'm sure that the best schools by country and by school district in America have the highest paid teachers; wealthy countries and school districts almost always score well and have plenty of money to hire the teachers they want (we'd be arguing cause and effect here, I'm sure). I'm skeptical that bringing in high paid expert teachers to low scoring districts is going to change much if there isn't anything going on at home to encourage education. Maybe the link said otherwise. I guess the equality goal is to have every school across the country have pretty much the same average (high) test scores.

Finland always scores the highest on that international test, and people are amazed and say we should just do what they do. I say that I don't think there are enough Finns to go around.

[RandomGuy]

I found that Ft. Worth and Indianapolis have an (R) mayor. Even that surprised me. I couldn't find one in the other cities I looked up.

Saying 2 parent families are great and legalizing gay marriage doesn't do anything to slow down divorce. And given the past few decades, it looks like the best way to stop out of wedlock births isn't legal abortion or birth control; what works best is what people used for centuries: shame. Maybe Hillary will put that on her platform.

I couldn't get the Pdf link to work. But I'm sure that the best schools by country and by school district in America have the highest paid teachers; wealthy countries and school districts almost always score well and have plenty of money to hire the teachers they want (we'd be arguing cause and effect here, I'm sure). I'm skeptical that bringing in high paid expert teachers to low scoring districts is going to change much if there isn't anything going on at home to encourage education. Maybe the link said otherwise. I guess the equality goal is to have every school across the country have pretty much the same average (high) test scores.

Finland always scores the highest on that international test, and people are amazed and say we should just do what they do. I say that I don't think there are enough Finns to go around.

Why would you want to "slow down" divorce?

Are you going to have the government force people who hate each other to stay together?

Are you going to force a woman to stay married to the man who is abusing her? her children?


(monkeys wiht links and URLS)
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf

Try that one.

[BradLohaus]

Somehow I forgot about Salt Lake City... even they have a (D) mayor! I would have lost that bet. So do Boise, Louisville, Nashville and Charlotte.

[RandomGuy]

And given the past few decades, it looks like the best way to stop out of wedlock births isn't legal abortion or birth control; what works best is what people used for centuries: shame.

No, not really. I call bullshit on that.

I reject the notion that out of wedlock births are even much of a problem.

If you want to claim they are, you have a burden of proof there.

[BradLohaus]

You just said you were all for 2 parent households and we should have more of them. Or just more homosexual ones? Guess I missed a joke.

[pgardn]

America IS a dysfunctional country, and the 1%/VRWC/Repugs don't give a shit.

If America is dysfunctional what is Egypt, Somalia, North Korea, Haiti, ...?
And why are all of the supposedly functional governments buying a dysfunctional governments T-bills?

[BradLohaus]

I just googled this.

Editor's note: Today's guest editorial is from the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle. Imagine asking a young woman if she wants her children to do poorly in school. Or to go to prison. Or to use drugs. Or to live in poverty. It's a good bet more than 70 percent of women and girls would say they don't want that for their children. And yet, The Associated Press reports that 72 percent of black children are now born out of wedlock -- and statistics show children of single mothers of any race are more likely to experience all those troubles and more.



One single mother interviewed for the AP story said she thinks marriage is a good idea -- but that "what's good for you might not be good for me." Ah, but that's not the question. The question is, what's best for the child? The facts, spelled out in study after study, don't just say two-parent families are better for kids -- they scream it. The 1990 report, "Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s," by the Democratic Progressive Policy Institute, is a landmark on the topic. The authors courageously reject the politically correct notion that "questions of family structure are purely private matters. ... The consequences of family failure affect society at large. We all pay for systems of welfare, mental and physical disability, criminal justice and incarceration; we are all made poorer by the inability or unwillingness of young adults to become contributing members of society; we all suffer if society is unsafe and divided and if our children are poorly educated." Notwithstanding conduct between consenting adults, society, they write, has a right to question "alternative lifestyles" that affect everyone -- in particular those that involve the raising of children. ... Nearly three-quarters of single-parent children experience poverty in their first 10 years of life, the PPI report says; only one-fifth of others will. Moreover, the report says, when you factor out single parenthood, there is no link between either race or income level and crime rates. ... Why would anyone knowingly do that to their children? If the answer is that they don't know what they're doing, then shouldn't we be able to tell them? After that, how much of the problem is self-indulgence and a refusal to delay gratification? ... It follows that choices those families make should be fair game for discussion.

http://www.times-herald.com/Opinion/The-facts-scream-out-two-parent-families-are-better-for-children-1399509

[BradLohaus]

RG still couldn't get it. It's probably my computer though I just bought a new one on Tues. and I haven't set much of anything up.

[TSA]

I reject the notion that out of wedlock births are even much of a problem.


Seriously?

[RandomGuy]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Give me data that it is a problem. It isn't my claim.

I do tend to think that children benefit from having male and female role models in their lives. I can buy that.

But as for children being born out of wedlock as some sort of problem, I don't buy it.

Quantify it. How is it a problem?

[vy65]

It's sad that welfare means money to poor people and not the instillation of responsible behavior

[vy65]

http://m.voices.yahoo.com/single-parent-households-does-affect-children-422927.html

[RandomGuy]

I just googled this.

Editor's note: Today's guest editorial is from the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle. Imagine asking a young woman if she wants her children to do poorly in school. Or to go to prison. Or to use drugs. Or to live in poverty. It's a good bet more than 70 percent of women and girls would say they don't want that for their children. And yet, The Associated Press reports that 72 percent of black children are now born out of wedlock -- and statistics show children of single mothers of any race are more likely to experience all those troubles and more.



One single mother interviewed for the AP story said she thinks marriage is a good idea -- but that "what's good for you might not be good for me." Ah, but that's not the question. The question is, what's best for the child? The facts, spelled out in study after study, don't just say two-parent families are better for kids -- they scream it. The 1990 report, "Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s," by the Democratic Progressive Policy Institute, is a landmark on the topic. The authors courageously reject the politically correct notion that "questions of family structure are purely private matters. ... The consequences of family failure affect society at large. We all pay for systems of welfare, mental and physical disability, criminal justice and incarceration; we are all made poorer by the inability or unwillingness of young adults to become contributing members of society; we all suffer if society is unsafe and divided and if our children are poorly educated." Notwithstanding conduct between consenting adults, society, they write, has a right to question "alternative lifestyles" that affect everyone -- in particular those that involve the raising of children. ... Nearly three-quarters of single-parent children experience poverty in their first 10 years of life, the PPI report says; only one-fifth of others will. Moreover, the report says, when you factor out single parenthood, there is no link between either race or income level and crime rates. ... Why would anyone knowingly do that to their children? If the answer is that they don't know what they're doing, then shouldn't we be able to tell them? After that, how much of the problem is self-indulgence and a refusal to delay gratification? ... It follows that choices those families make should be fair game for discussion.

http://www.times-herald.com/Opinion/The-facts-scream-out-two-parent-families-are-better-for-children-1399509

Here is the report:

http://www.dlc.org/documents/Putting_Children_First_0990.pdf


Who We Are
The Progressive Policy Institute is an independent, innovative and high-impact D.C.-based think tank founded in 1989. As the original “idea mill” for President Bill Clinton’s New Democrats, PPI has a long legacy of promoting break-the-mold ideas aimed at economic growth, national security and modern, performance-based government. Today, PPI’s unique mix of political realism and policy innovation continues to make it a leading source of pragmatic and creative ideas. PPI is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization.

Policy Initiatives
We seek to advance progressive, market-friendly ideas that promote American innovation, economic growth and wider opportunity. Our work focuses on four main areas:

Competitiveness and the “production economy.” We believe in regenerating America’s capacity to produce—ideas and services as well as goods. Our work focuses on removing governmental barriers to innovation, including antitrust, and regulatory reform; tax policy; trade; education and workforce development; infrastructure and telecom.
Energy. As supporters of all-of-the-above “energy realism,” we focus on natural gas, nuclear and renewables as keys to greater energy independence and new jobs.
Medical innovation. We believe more innovation—not less—is central to raising productivity growth in health care and bringing down costs. We promote FDA regulatory reform and seek to change the debate around innovation’s role in controlling costs.
Housing and financial services. We believe in a robust housing market and a healthy balance between government and private capital. Our work focuses on housing and homeownership, Fannie and Freddie reform, financial services regulation and retirement security.

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/about/

Interesting.

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

(yawns)

Bed time.

[boutons_deux]

Seriously?

:lol

[101A]

Seriously though, the available research suggests that throwing money into teachers salaries is a very excellent way of improving education.

How the world’s best-performing schools come out on top
(Pdf link here) http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-on-top/#sthash.PDYa6PtV.dpuf

Teacher salary was ranked as one of THE chief factors. It attracts, and keeps, the kinds of people who make effective teachers, and is simply the best free-market way to get talent.

Yes, having two parents helps too, but it is far easier to simply raise teacher salaries than to dictate some desired moral or societal outcome.

That works IF the district doesn't actively practice nepotism (as is the case with our local district). If you aren't FROM here, you ain't working here. Starting salary = $63K (all grades, bachelor's degree).

A true free market practice would be to pay more where more is required for better teachers; science, for instance.

[boutons_deux]

"the available research suggests that throwing money into teachers salaries is a very excellent way of improving education."

I would say upgrading the profession by more strenuous bachelor's and teacher professional training is where to start, then raise the salaries to match the better teacher quality, merit, merit, merit, all the way.

I would also welcome some public schools without expensive sports programs draining funds away from education that thereby show their primary goal is education not babysitting and entertainment of the students. eg, shitcan the football program.

[RandomGuy]

That works IF the district doesn't actively practice nepotism (as is the case with our local district). If you aren't FROM here, you ain't working here. Starting salary = $63K (all grades, bachelor's degree).

A true free market practice would be to pay more where more is required for better teachers; science, for instance.

They already do generally pay more for science teachers, and there are some modest federal gimmies as well. (wife is high school science teacher in a poor rural district)

I have little doubt there is, and always will be nepotism at some localities.

What I am talking about is a systematic shift over the entire country, focused on areas with concentrations of poverty.

I see the results of low pay in a very first-hand way. It is heartbreaking to see kids who need an education very badly have to deal with a school system composed almost entirely of first year teachers and a 50% annual turnover rate. Less than 80 miles away is a school system that pays 50% more for first year teachers. They simply can't compete.

[RandomGuy]

http://m.voices.yahoo.com/single-parent-households-does-affect-children-422927.html


Problems found in the single-parent household may not be because of the parent who raised these children, but can be linked to other things that are also related to single parenting. It has been pointed out that when there is only one parent, the family is often less well off financially and this is the main reason for so many family problems. Reports show that the effects of coming from a low-income family can include things like lower education levels, lower economic achievement and can result in leaving the child feeling isolated and lonely. Being a single parent and struggling for money often coincide. It is also true that children of one-parent households are generally less supervised, their actions are less monitored and there is usually less communication between the child and parent. It would appear that being a part of a single-parent household indicates a negative family environment. It should be said however that many single-parent families find a balance and successfully thrive in today's world.

Better, but is the root cause of most problems being a single parent, or the lower financial income that generally accompanies that?

It is quite possible to compensate for the worst effects of not having the other spouse with things like extended and on-demand daycare.

[RandomGuy]

It's sad that welfare means money to poor people and not the instillation of responsible behavior

The composition of welfare recipients has been shown to you.

"welfare" has work requirements to be eligible to recieve, unless you are physically disabled or too old to work. Most don't even stay on the program.

How do you reconcile this data with your blanket statement?

Do we toss those disabled people who physically can't work out to starve too?

[RandomGuy]

And yes, I am horrible about sticking to my ignore lists. I should just quit making that promise altogether.

Mea culpa.

[vy65]

You just can't quit me, can you?

[RandomGuy]

Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/2-10-12bud-f1.jpg

53% is spent on people who look like this:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Pix/pictures/2008/09/30/1disability.jpg

Look at that filthy lazy woman, just sitting there taking my money. She should be starving in the streets, right vy?

20% is spent on people who look like this:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20130714/f04da2db1484134c4c1460.jpg

Yet another worthless human being making bad choices like sitting in that fucking chair all day.

18% is spent on people who look like this:
http://laborlou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/nickelanddimed1_large1.jpg

Look at that! She obviously needs to be tossed out in the trash as well. Too lazy to look for a better job with all that spare time I bet she has.

So now we have the real scumbags, the 9% is spend on people who don't fall into those categories...

I bet they stay on these programs for their entire lives, just soaking up my hard earned tax money, just having kids year after year that they can't afford...

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Total amount of time spent on Aid to Families with Dependent Children for five years or less:
80.4%

[RandomGuy]

You just can't quit me, can you?

No. Your ignorance and lack of morals/humanity make you an easy target.

Again, mea culpa.

[boutons_deux]

"ignorance and lack of morals/humanity"

applies to all extreme right wingers, all their politician, meriting REPUGnant.

[BradLohaus]

ROFL no more football team + more money = better test scores. Sometimes I'd like to take a shot of this Kool-Aid.

[BradLohaus]

BTW do yall know any teachers? Sure, just pay them more that's the ticket LOL

[boutons_deux]

BTW do yall know any teachers? Sure, just pay them more that's the ticket LOL

no, it's not. more intensive training as a higher barrier to entry to the profession, to disqualify.

I'm for grants to teachers for the education. And just like college-level ROTC or the military academies, govt pays the teachers' education, secondary and beyond, AND obligates the teachers to teach for 15 years. Leave before 15 years, and you owe pro rata the cost of the education. Drop out of govt-funded education or fail to obtain diplomas, you pay the education costs.

I'd also block any principal or other key administrator from those posts if they haven't had at least 10 years in the classroom. No more MBA/business administrators with no clue about the classroom.

[BradLohaus]

Train them better, and so on. Education majors aren't engineers; there's no changing that fact.

Ah, the Left and its fascination with education. I look forward to the future with my garbage man who can do calculus.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Train them better, and so on. Education majors aren't engineers; there's no changing that fact.

Ah, the Left and its fascination with education. I look forward to the future with my garbage man who can do calculus.

It's little surprise that 'the right' prefers people to be ignorant.

The issue with math comes far before calculus. The early disconnect with math comes in primary school typically with fractions. English and history comes with a lot of why in addition to content. Math all too often is learned as rote. I have gotten kids through trig and algebra starting with an explanation for the basis of polynomials. It's much the same reason why classical mechanics and integration should be taught at the same time. That is besides the point though.

I am an engineer and I would be a teacher if the profession paid worth a flip. I tutored kids as an undergrad and loved it. The issue is compensation.

[boutons_deux]

ROFL no more football team + more money = better test scores. Sometimes I'd like to take a shot of this Kool-Aid.

straw man, You Lie

[Winehole23]

Train them better, and so on. Education majors aren't engineers; there's no changing that fact.Not all teenagers belong in high school. Compulsory universal education has a downside for education.

[boutons_deux]

Train them better, and so on. Education majors aren't engineers; there's no changing that fact.

why shouldn't a k-12 teacher have the same intellectual capacities, intelligence, education, respect for his profession, and salary as an engineer in the $70K - $100K range?

[101A]

Not all teenagers belong in high school. Compulsory universal education has a downside for education.

This.

Trade schools; educate (at least some) to a profession not an abstract universal threshold of knowledge. Germany is doing a pretty darn good job; a great model.

[101A]

why shouldn't a k-12 teacher have the same intellectual capacities, intelligence, education, respect for his profession, and salary as an engineer in the $70K - $100K range?

In our district, they have the salary. It's the other traits listed that are lacking. Education degree != engineering degree.

Our science and math departments are full of "Science Education" and "Math Education" degrees; NOT real scientists or mathematicians! Why not a B.S. in Chemistry? Because they can't take and pass the classes for REAL scientists. They run to the education department, get a whole new set of classes (and professors, btw).

I agree - the salaries SHOULD be high enough to attract better, more intelligent teachers; and they ARE that high in our district (again STARTING salary for all teachers with a BA or BS is $63,000!). Of course education degrees are REQUIRED - that keeps the ACTUAL professionals, many with advanced degrees, out of the competition for teacher's jobs. Once they have those jobs, also, they are nigh untouchable. Our district has been shrinking for a couple of decades (from 3800 students in '90 to about 2100 now); but the district isn't allowed to shape the makeup of teachers fit what is needed to teach the students. If a bunch of English teachers retire, but no Coaches do? Can't let some PE teachers go to hire English ones; now you've got a six figure salaried wrestling coach teaching English Lit!!!

My daughter currently has a Home Economics teacher "teaching" her Algebra, and a Visual Media teacher teaching her "History". Both of these individuals make of 90K per year; both classes are a joke.

The problem is NOT money; it is systemic - and varies from District to District. In some, as RG eloquently points out, it IS money; in others it is bad priorities - in ours, it's fucked up DESPITE the fact that we currently are paying 17 grand per year per student to educate our kids. The big mask here is that SO many of the students are children of professors (15 thousand student university in a 30 thousand population town) - those kids succeed regardless. They also get good enough test scores, and provide a steady stream of IVY league and other elite post-secondary success to allow the district to feel elite, even though it's actually a wasteful disaster. I could simply blame the union, but it's deeper than that, the school board has never actually held the line on the CBA to even MAKE the union strike; they simply pretty much cave every 4 years to whatever demands the union makes. This summer it comes up again; we'll see where it goes...

[RandomGuy]

BTW do yall know any teachers? Sure, just pay them more that's the ticket LOL

It is a fairly straightforward thing to show. Here are some sane discussions and information from the proponents.

http://opportunityculture.org/reach/pay-teachers-more/
http://www.teacherfinance.org/2012/10/why-are-teachers-underpaid.html

But the economics are pretty straight-forward:

Increase demand/price point for a given good/service and you will get more of it. Pretty fundamental law of economics that no one disputes.

Increase demand and pay for more talented, smart people to become teachers, and you will get more talented smart people to become teachers.

Talented, smart people tend to be more efficient and proficient at their jobs than less talented, smart people.

It really is that simple, IMO.

A bit more on the topic from people who aren't raging activists:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/84780/teacher-pay-international-comparison-usa-korea

Some quantification:
http://epi.3cdn.net/05447667bb274f359e_zam6br3st.pdf


From what I have seen, the balance of evidence indicates we should most definitely pay more. Especially since money invested in better teachers means a better educated, more innovative workforce, which has some very decidedly positive long term effects. A no-brainer, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Not all teenagers belong in high school. Compulsory universal education has a downside for education.

The American Myth that everybody can become wealthy if they just work hard enough and go to college is part of the denigration of HS vocational training. Europe has tracked their students for decades, into academic or vocational/tech 2ndary schools. But American keeps pushing the myth that only the academic HS track, which must not be denied, AND college is the ticket to The American Myth, not welding or machine shop classes.

[Winehole23]

This.

Trade schools; educate (at least some) to a profession not an abstract universal threshold of knowledge. Germany is doing a pretty darn good job; a great model.whatever the social benefit, at bottom human potential is being tailored to more or less well-defined social needs: this jars with the narrative of individual liberty and bootstrap promotion and "equal opportunity for all."

[Winehole23]

In our district, they have the salary. It's the other traits listed that are lacking. Education degree != engineering degree.

Our science and math departments are full of "Science Education" and "Math Education" degrees; NOT real scientists or mathematicians! Why not a B.S. in Chemistry? Because they can't take and pass the classes for REAL scientists. They run to the education department, get a whole new set of classes (and professors, btw).

I agree - the salaries SHOULD be high enough to attract better, more intelligent teachers; and they ARE that high in our district (again STARTING salary for all teachers with a BA or BS is $63,000!). Of course education degrees are REQUIRED - that keeps the ACTUAL professionals, many with advanced degrees, out of the competition for teacher's jobs. Once they have those jobs, also, they are nigh untouchable. Our district has been shrinking for a couple of decades (from 3800 students in '90 to about 2100 now); but the district isn't allowed to shape the makeup of teachers fit what is needed to teach the students. If a bunch of English teachers retire, but no Coaches do? Can't let some PE teachers go to hire English ones; now you've got a six figure salaried wrestling coach teaching English Lit!!!

My daughter currently has a Home Economics teacher "teaching" her Algebra, and a Visual Media teacher teaching her "History". Both of these individuals make of 90K per year; both classes are a joke.

The problem is NOT money; it is systemic - and varies from District to District. In some, as RG eloquently points out, it IS money; in others it is bad priorities - in ours, it's fucked up DESPITE the fact that we currently are paying 17 grand per year per student to educate our kids. The big mask here is that SO many of the students are children of professors (15 thousand student university in a 30 thousand population town) - those kids succeed regardless. They also get good enough test scores, and provide a steady stream of IVY league and other elite post-secondary success to allow the district to feel elite, even though it's actually a wasteful disaster. I could simply blame the union, but it's deeper than that, the school board has never actually held the line on the CBA to even MAKE the union strike; they simply pretty much cave every 4 years to whatever demands the union makes. This summer it comes up again; we'll see where it goes...wow

[Nbadan]

wow

Not really...101 has been known to exaggerate his figures just a little...

Do some research on your own..

[Nbadan]

Not all teenagers belong in high school. Compulsory universal education has a downside for education.

Yep....some kids don't appreciate an education so they act up and become a distraction in class to students who want to learn..but in poor districts you could have a class of 25 and have a handful of non-english speakers, a few (or more) kids with serious physiological,emotional, and behavioral issues that have little to do with the effectiveness of a teacher in any given year...

[BradLohaus]

^ I agree, some school districts just have less intelligent kids dues to their less intelligent parents. Zing!

[SupremeGuy]

Correlation is not Causation



:rollinlol at being illogical