Do Democrats Destroy Cities?

[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 ty 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.

[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....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/downloa...tems_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 bull 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 sexual ones? Guess I missed a joke.

[pgardn]

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

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 Ins ute, 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/...ildren-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-par...en-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 Ins ute, 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/...ildren-1399509

Here is the report:

http://www.dlc.org/do ents/Putting...First_0990.pdf

Who We Are
The Progressive Policy Ins ute 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:

Compe iveness 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 an rust, 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?

[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....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, can 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.