Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids • Hacker News Board

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#51

Post by germinalphrase » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

mrwarn wrote: post #36

germinalphrase wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that our population would effectively self-educate without gov't funded education?

Do you believe our population is effectively educated with government funded education?

No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we approach education as a task rather than how we fund it.

If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools are flat compared to public schools.

I do, however, believe that in absence of a publicly funded education system a large segment of our population would simply be locked out of educational opportunities. How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#52

Post by thehoff » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 4:04 PM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #47

The key to well functioning kids is involved parents. The key to involved parents is less time spent working. Americans need to get over their fetish for hard work and start staying home more. Or just stop having kids altogether and use work as the primary source of joy.

That sounds great from where you may sit but what about those families where the parents have to work long hours just to provide?

I know there are some that are definitely not in a financial position where they can do that. Working less is just not an option when you are barely making ends meet. And trust me, they would love to spend more time with their kids.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#53

Post by msandford » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 7:23 PM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #51

mrwarn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe our population is effectively educated with government funded education?

No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we approach education as a task rather than how we fund it. If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools are flat compared to public schools. I do, however, beli…

> How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?

You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education right? It's just indirect through property taxes.

Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be 50/50 kids/no kids meaning that the best you can get is a 50% "discount" over directly funding instead of funding via taxes.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#54

Post by germinalphrase » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 8:38 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #53

germinalphrase wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we approach education as a task rather than how we fund it. If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools are flat compared to public schools. I do, however, beli…

> How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees? You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education right? It's just indirect through property taxes. Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be 50/50 kids/…

Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if gov't funded education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is not working, but that the problem is not dependent on the source of funding.

When we turn public schools into private schools (as Chicago has done by the dozens in the last few years) we don't see educational improvements when the students population remains the same. When we do, it's modest or an outlier (and education is filled with outliers).

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#55

Post by harryh » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 12:28 AM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #50

harryh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW some casual web searching says that's not true. shrug

https://youtu.be/akVL7QY0S8A?t=20m28s

She doesn't say that it's for equivalent sized housing. As I said square footage per person has increased DRAMATICALLY over the past 50 years.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#56

Post by foobarqux » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #55

foobarqux wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://youtu.be/akVL7QY0S8A?t=20m28s

She doesn't say that it's for equivalent sized housing. As I said square footage per person has increased DRAMATICALLY over the past 50 years.

She uses # rooms as equivalent, not sq-foot.

Maybe sq-footage has increased, but your data is about new housing across all economic classes and we are interested in median middle class housing. Besides the problem of data skew (richer people live in bigger houses), Warren claims that most of the middle class live in old homes, not new ones. She specifically says that new homes are being built for upper middle class and above.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#57

Post by harryh » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 2:34 AM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #56

harryh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She doesn't say that it's for equivalent sized housing. As I said square footage per person has increased DRAMATICALLY over the past 50 years.

She uses # rooms as equivalent, not sq-foot. Maybe sq-footage has increased, but your data is about new housing across all economic classes and we are interested in median middle class housing. Besides the problem of data skew (richer people live in bigger houses), Warren claims that most of the middle class live in old homes, not new ones. She specifically says that new homes are being built for upper middle class a…

The chart I linked to way above was for median housing.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#58

Post by foobarqux » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 2:46 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #57

foobarqux wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She uses # rooms as equivalent, not sq-foot. Maybe sq-footage has increased, but your data is about new housing across all economic classes and we are interested in median middle class housing. Besides the problem of data skew (richer people live in bigger houses), Warren claims that most of the middle class live in old homes, not new ones. She specifically says that new homes are being built for upper middle class a…

The chart I linked to way above was for median housing.

It was median new housing developments. Not the housing of a median family, nor the housing of a median middle class family.

Again, Warren's claim is that median middle class families live in old homes. And even if they didn't median middle class homes are potentially smaller than median homes.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#59

Post by msandford » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #54

msandford wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees? You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education right? It's just indirect through property taxes. Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be 50/50 kids/…

Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if gov't funded education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is not working, but that the problem is…

Education is almost 100% funded by property taxes and sales taxes. Property taxes are a tax on the value of the property, not on your income or your equity in the property, but based on the "fair market value" of the property. Sales tax is based on the value of the transaction.

Everyone lives somewhere, and somewhere basically always has a value attached to it. Maybe run down apartments aren't worth as much as fancy new ones, but property tax still has to be paid.

Even if you rent, you still pay property taxes. The owner of the apartment considers property taxes as a part of his/her expenses the same way a mortgage, insurance, maintenance, etc are expenses. Those expenses get rolled into the rent.

Sales taxes are largely regressive, because any money saved is by default not going to get any sales tax applied. And poor people spend a larger portion of their income on things which are taxed than wealthier people do; look at the whole "buying experiences" advice that well-to-do participate in. Those are generally arranged as "services" which aren't taxable, rather than products, which are.

Progressive taxes are generally based on income, not property value or transaction value. As a result, funding for education is currently borne fairly evenly amongst people who both have an address and buy things, no matter their income level.