391–400 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you arguing for better access to birth control? Or that the children should be punished for the sins of their mother?
Well like it or not, children do pay for the sins of their parents. It's not something to be argued for its simply the truth
Terrible writing alert: "Per the state of Ohio, Akron’s schools were given just $10,028 in state and local funds per student in 2016 — more than the statewide average, but still a relatively low figure for a city of a little under 200,000." Relative to what? You've already told us it was higher than the state average. To call it relatively lower means that there are some who receive more, but we're in the dark as to…
According to Google, it's below the U.S. average, and N.Y. cities spend 20.000 or more per student (up to 60.000 in one case).
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/09/28/cities-spend...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The profit comes from the labour of people who work for you. Any profit you make is the difference between what their true labour is worth and what you pay them. So unless the owners are adding billions in value by themselves they are paying people less than the true value of their work. The extent at which this happens is where some ethical issues lie. If you keep wages low while making large profit there is a point…
Value creation is not a zero-sum game. A cooperative selling the same products and services as, say, Amazon might not make the same profit. Coherent vision and leadership can contribute a lot to the value creation process.
Who said it was?
> A cooperative selling the same products and services as, say, Amazon might not make the same profit.
It might make more. It might make less because it's paying it's workers more fairly.
> Coherent vision and leadership can contribute a lot to the value creation process.
Yes, this is also labour and should receive a fair value. Everyone in the company is a worker but "unless the owners are adding billions in value by themselves they are paying people less than the true value of their work".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You absolutely cannot compare Northern Europe with inner-city black America. Different worlds, different values, different histories, different attitudes, different challenges. No model fits all, especially in education, but these two realities are so dramatically different that they don’t really belong in the same sentence.
They also have policies in place to support parents at the beginning of a child's life (i.e. the most important developmental phase of life). They also have a lower GDP per capita and somehow still afford all of these benefits that we are continually told would bankrupt our country. Truly a country of "family values". - Maternity boxes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_package - New child leave - Expecting mo…
To be honest, you don't even have to go as far as the US, there are very similar issues in European banlieues and the likes. Long school hours used to be a typical postwar demand of progressive worker-rights movements, because it freed parents (especially women) to pursue career advancement and focused kids on academic achievement. I am a product of that sort of system, myself: from the age of 6 to the age of 12, I would be in school from 8:30am to 4:30pm, 5 days a week - plus an optional extra hour at both ends because my parents couldn't pick me up sooner. Unfortunately, after the social regression of the last 20 years, that kind of system is slowly disappearing in Europe too, and for all the bad reasons (cost-cutting).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Longer school days, 3 meals, and a longer school year helps students stay focused. The middle one is absolutely true, the other two I really doubt e.g. in Finland or Germany, schoolday starts around 9AM and ends around 2PM, yielding 3h30 to 4h studies a day accounting for breaks, 5 days/week, with little homework (maybe 5h/week total). Afternoon is usually dedicated to clubs.
Longer school days might help kids with stressful home environment but it also poses risk to bonding b/w kids and parents especially for parents who are able to provide and are working towards holistic(moral, etc.) development of their kids. Longer school days should be optional with extra curricular activities to fill the later part of the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even really that. Your home environment sets your barometer for what normal life looks like and for how strangers can be expected to behave. If your parents fight and assume ill intent in every mistake then you see that in every interaction. If they're constantly trying to get one over on each other then that's how you see human relationships. They don't have to love you or be particularly invested in you fo…
It is really even that. Just because it may not be logical or make sense, family bonds amd familial love are still a thing, even in families with lots of problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you arguing for better access to birth control? Or that the children should be punished for the sins of their mother?
Someone might argue that people shouldn't engage in activities that have a strong probability of creating responsibilities they can't handle, no matter how good those initial activities feel. In other parts of society we'd say "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." I know this is a very unpopular opinion the world over right now, but: This applies loosely to sex as well (Don't have sex if you can't afford to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is an elephant in the room or a conversation we can't have right now. Lets. What, besides providing extra resources to underpriveleged children so they are not punished for their parents mistakes, can be done? Are you suggesting we make their parents "pay" somehow? Or a program to prevent the parents from having 5+ kids when they don't have the resources?
> Are you suggesting we make their parents "pay" somehow? Or a program to prevent the parents from having 5+ kids when they don't have the resources? Due to the way government assistance is structured it encourages parents to 1) not get married, 2) have more kids, 3) not begin working if they don't already work. If we changed government assistance to encourage parents getting married that would help reduce fatherless…
That's not really a good idea. I know my godson's parents, and if they getting assistance was reliant on getting married, they would end up killing each other.
"If we changed government assistance to encourage parents to have less children they would be better able to take care of the ones they have."
How, exactly would you do this? And do it without punishing the kids by leaving their parents with even fewer resources?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finland has a drastically lower poverty rate, lower income inequality [1] and lower violent crime rate than the United States [2]. This fact, combined with Finland's well-known social safety nets leads to the obvious conclusion that you would be hard pressed to find living conditions like those in the slums of Akron/Cleveland in Finland. [1] https://data.oecd.org/finland.htm#profile-government [2] http://www.nationma…
==This fact, combined with Finland's well-known social safety nets leads to the obvious conclusion that you would be hard pressed to find living conditions like those in the slums of Akron/Cleveland in Finland.== Isn't it possible that Finland's well-known social safety net is at least partially responsible for the lower poverty, income inequality and violent crime rates?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to get too off topic, but I have a hard time blaming the left for the current political divide in the United States. Saying that someone who pushes leftwards is bad for American politics because they're not closer to the "center" seems like promoting a false equivalence.
I agree, and I don't blame the left as much as I blame the right. I do however think that exacerbating the divide is a bad thing.