The Obama Presidency

which teaching is the key, group are you talking about?

Liberals that think we need to double and triple the number of teachers, shrink classes and pay them at least 50,000 a year or

Conservatives that hate standardized tests, hate common core, BUT think we should hold teachers accountable (how you do that without some form of testing or standards is beyond me) and want to go back to 1920's school math where we teach kids how to give people change at their McDonald's job but not the trig or calc they will need for any science or tech job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

That medium article is not that convincing. It's an awfully convenient line of argument for the ultra rich rentiers class that the Economist shills for, though.

There is a grain of truth of course. SF's housing situation is in crisis mode because of regulatory capture. Yet increasing housing supply for San Francisco and Manhattan really only benefits those who want to live there or can almost afford to live there. People who are, in other words, already relatively affluent. It does nothing for people in flyover country with relatively cheap housing and lots of land, or people who would struggle to afford a mortgage.

The argument seems like the next stage of the "capital gains taxes should be low because a lot of Americans own stock" argument, even though the upper 10% own something like 80% of equity in this country.

Maybe the actual paper is more convincing.

---

I don't disagree but at the least it warrants investigation. I suppose cheaper housing may exacerbate the issue? But if it is true that housing is the gateway to financial stability then carefully controlling and subsidizing the market will make the lower ladder easier to reach. Maybe a bigger first time buyer credit (did that up here and it was terrific).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

I'd like to see all public schools given the same funding, let's also give teachers a reasonable salary and lets see what happens in a generation or two.

---

Or we could just start and ensure the schools have the same factilities. That'd be the day when suburban honkey gotta watch his blonde ass daughter walk through a metal detector and get patted down for the first time. Too bad some kind of "school swap" program isn't in place where rich ass babies gotta go to a real school and see that there's nothin' soft about hard times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

But if it is true that housing is the gateway to financial stability then carefully controlling and subsidizing the market will make the lower ladder easier to reach.

---

I think that's what Germany does, and they are generally happy with their system.

In the US, the "first time buyer credit" is your rich parents. Education! Bootstraps!

It'd be interesting to see how the suburban kids behaviour changes if they're treated like criminals five days a week.

Maybe the answer is the "Dan Cody"s of the world.

Before 1950 a very common thread in "success" fiction was the arch type of the old wealthy man that would take an interest in a poor youth. They would build a bond, the youth helping the old man and the old man teaching the child the "magic" or "the way" of the powerful. Almost all young men's fiction had this plot device.

But after 1950, it would be neglected or out right removed. It is so neglected that Dan Cody's name doesn't even appear on the wiki page for "The Great Gatsby" despite being a turning point of the life of Gatsby.

Even with great writers on the subject of Arch types, such as Joseph Campbell, you only hear murmurs of the this character and his importance. He boils the character down to the old father figure that must die.

How did we get here? How did we forget this character and his importance? How did we forget our relationship with him?

How did both sides of this coin forget this contract? That we, the poor lads, will help the powerful old men and in exchange they will teach and give us the power as they move on to the next stages of their lives? Was this character the harbinger of the grace of God and he died with the rest of the Gods when we dropped the bomb?

Or is it something simple like the lies we tell our selves are easier than the truth? That the lie of the self made man is so much sweeter? That there are only the wealthy and the wealthy that have not realized their wealth? That we can all go it alone, and when we realize our wealth and our a power that it will be so much sweeter because not only will it keep us safe, it will message our ego?

What the hell happened in 1950?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

It'd be interesting to see how the suburban kids behaviour changes if they're treated like a criminal five days a week.

---

Did you listen to the This American Life named "Three Miles" from a week or two ago? Pretty interesting.

I'm about six months behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

It'd be interesting to see how the suburban kids behavior changes if they're treated like a criminal five days a week.

---

Well yes, people live up to people's expectations. Treat someone like shit, and they will become shit.

It would also help if those types of kids didn't actively pursue and create culture that made them an 'other' to the establishment.

Waiting on the other side to change isn't fixing anything either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

I'm about six months behind.

---

It's *directly* applicable to this topic.