quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Try this on for size. Today's minimum wage is worth less in actual spending power than the minimum wage was worth in 1960. The poor, minimum wage earner, along with those on the margins, like myself, who make just above minimum wage, are worst off than ever before. And we have higher local taxes than ever before.

this is not a personal attack, just saying.......

you have a house, a car, a computer, internet connection, and I assume a mobile phone too., and probably a few other things

sometimes people forget the meaning of poverty

It would appear that your definition of poverty includes sleeping under a bridge and eating from a dumpster.
How easily we can define ourselves out of poverty by listing the things that someone in bangledash has never heard of.
If we compare poor americans to rich americans we get a truer picture but you do not seem interested in a true picture????what is it that you are interested in vis-a-vis this thread?

I'm telling you...it's lack of money!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Try this on for size. Today's minimum wage is worth less in actual spending power than the minimum wage was worth in 1960. The poor, minimum wage earner, along with those on the margins, like myself, who make just above minimum wage, are worst off than ever before. And we have higher local taxes than ever before.

this is not a personal attack, just saying.......

you have a house, a car, a computer, internet connection, and I assume a mobile phone too., and probably a few other things

sometimes people forget the meaning of poverty

It would appear that your definition of poverty includes sleeping under a bridge and eating from a dumpster.
How easily we can define ourselves out of poverty by listing the things that someone in bangledash has never heard of.
If we compare poor americans to rich americans we get a truer picture but you do not seem interested in a true picture????what is it that you are interested in vis-a-vis this thread?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Try this on for size. Today's minimum wage is worth less in actual spending power than the minimum wage was worth in 1960. The poor, minimum wage earner, along with those on the margins, like myself, who make just above minimum wage, are worst off than ever before. And we have higher local taxes than ever before.

this is not a personal attack, just saying.......

you have a house, a car, a computer, internet connection, and I assume a mobile phone too., and probably a few other things

sometimes people forget the meaning of poverty

It would appear that your definition of poverty includes sleeping under a bridge and eating from a dumpster.
How easily we can define ourselves out of poverty by listing the things that someone in bangledash has never heard of.
If we compare poor americans to rich americans we get a truer picture but you do not seem interested in a true picture????what is it that you are interested in vis-a-vis this thread?

quote:

you are putting words in my mouth but I think you have shown your true colours with your deliberate spelling of "Bangledash" as opposed to the country known as Bangladesh.

Those who cannot or will not discuss the topic will invariably attack spelling errors...that is why I put them in for you.

quote:

The question of urban poverty will never be answered on a forum like this that so often becomes pathetically pureile, as you have so clearly demonstrated, all I was pointing out was that sometimes we, in the western world, need to have a look at the billions of people who are in genuine poverty before moaning about our supposed poverty.

Feel free to answer the OP now

Since we are discussing poverty in the u.s. how bout we discuss poverty in the u.s. and not in bangledash/

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 3/25/2013 7:06:20 PM >

(in reply to deathtothepixies)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Nope, not at all. Federal spending on schools is only 9% of all school spending, and in many places, especially the big cities the northeast, it represents a very small percentage of the school budgets. In most towns, and cities and counties, school taxes make up about 85% of local property tax bills. Other states do accept a lot more federal aid, a lot of the 'low tax' states down south get significant portions of their school budgets from the feds (roughly 25% in states like South Carolina), in NJ it is about 2%. Take a look at the best school districts in this country, the Potomac, Marylands, Scarsdale, NY, Mendham, NJ, Basking Ridge, NJ and so forth, you will find they spend a lot of money on their kids, in places like Scarsdale it is 20k_ per kid, whereas in the worst districts (old, familiar territory, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama) they spend a fraction of that, and they are at the bottom of the pile..btw, the same problems with schools in inner cities exist in rural, poor areas like apalchia, mississippi, and so forth......
No states as far as I know use income taxes to fund school programs, and federal spending is targeted, but it represents relatively little money (and the GOP has been trying for years to get rid of federal education spending).
Section 8 is part of the problem, and so is public housing in general, plus there also is little incentive for those who economically move up to stay instead of moviing out to better neighborhoods.

Toledo Metro area schools with 2011 rankings (of all 1000+ public schools in Ohio), Performance Index (PI) score % of Standards met and the $ spend per pupil:

DISTRICT...............RANK...PI SCORE....STANDARDS MET......$/PUPIL
Ottawa Hills Local.......9.......110.3578..........100.00%..........$14,265
Anthony Wayne Local.62.....106.3993...........100.00%...........$8,260
Perrysburg EVSD.......83.....105.5754...........100.00%...........$8,590
Sylvania City............107....104.116.............100.00%.........$11,574
Maumee City............132....103.2144...........100.00%..........$10,626
Springfield Local........239...100.8355...........100.00%............$9,320
Rossford EVSD..........309....99.5766.............96.20%...........$13,848
Northwood Local........386....98.2669.............96.20%.............$8,723
Washington Local.......448....96.8616.............88.50%...........$11,585
Oregon City..............484....96.1731..............76.90%...........$10,366
Toledo City...............708....83.0602..............19.20%...........$13,859

SOURCE
Ottawa Hills has the highest area spend per pupil and the highest ranking of area schools (Note: I only compared data for the K-12 public schools and didn't include "specialty/charter" schools; rankings included Ohio specialty schools). Toledo Public has the second highest and the worst ranking. The highest rated school in Ohio is a charter school with a PI of 115.9375 and $/pupil of $24,038, and the highest rated public school (4th) is Indian Hill EVSD with a PI of 110.9731 and a $/pupil of $15,209.
Toledo Public is a "city" school and has expenses that Ottawa Hills has (Ottawa Hills being in the "rich" area). Anthony Wayne School District has the lowest $/pupil in the area but is second highest ranked in the area.
$/pupil is one metric that doesn't tell the whole story. It's akin to weight. If I told you a guy weighed 235# and was 6' 2", what does that tell you about his physique? I could tell you his BMI was 30.2, but that, again, doesn't give the whole story. According to height/weight charts, the "ideal" weight for this guy is 172-197, if he has a "large frame." A BMI of 30.2 lands this guy just into the "Obese" category. Looking strictly at one stat, like $/pupil, can give you an idea, but would consider Arnold Schwarzenegger 38+# over his ideal weight and "Obese" while he was at his competition weight. $/pupil might tell you something, but it also might not tell you anything without more information.

Des....that is one fuck of a lot of numbers!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Jobs are needed. Not talk. Economic revitalization of our cities has to be a national priority.

That is why the proposal for an interracial dialogue is not a solution. Especially since it stems from the perceived need to salve the fears of whites who were left behind on the fringes of black neighborhoods. Talk is bullshit. Useless. We have a monumental economic catastrophe on our hands. Our cities never recovered from the post War social change.

I don't know whatever happened to Jack Kemp's Enterprise Zones but probably the only solution is some kind of Government/Industry partnership to bring jobs back to the cities beginning with assembly work that can be done by high school drop outs and single mothers. And we may need police and fire protection in the beginning. Also government subsidized property insurance for businesses in blighted areas. Maybe combining the schools with new industries. Otherwise, I do not have a solution either.

But, until the cities are revitalized economically interracial discourse is a waste of time because the unemployed do not trust the threatened and the threatened do not trust the unemployed. America cannot continue as a nation divided city from suburbs, blacks from whites. It is a national disgrace and disaster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Nope, not at all. Federal spending on schools is only 9% of all school spending, and in many places, especially the big cities the northeast, it represents a very small percentage of the school budgets. In most towns, and cities and counties, school taxes make up about 85% of local property tax bills. Other states do accept a lot more federal aid, a lot of the 'low tax' states down south get significant portions of their school budgets from the feds (roughly 25% in states like South Carolina), in NJ it is about 2%. Take a look at the best school districts in this country, the Potomac, Marylands, Scarsdale, NY, Mendham, NJ, Basking Ridge, NJ and so forth, you will find they spend a lot of money on their kids, in places like Scarsdale it is 20k_ per kid, whereas in the worst districts (old, familiar territory, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama) they spend a fraction of that, and they are at the bottom of the pile..btw, the same problems with schools in inner cities exist in rural, poor areas like apalchia, mississippi, and so forth......
No states as far as I know use income taxes to fund school programs, and federal spending is targeted, but it represents relatively little money (and the GOP has been trying for years to get rid of federal education spending).
Section 8 is part of the problem, and so is public housing in general, plus there also is little incentive for those who economically move up to stay instead of moviing out to better neighborhoods.

Toledo Metro area schools with 2011 rankings (of all 1000+ public schools in Ohio), Performance Index (PI) score % of Standards met and the $ spend per pupil:

DISTRICT...............RANK...PI SCORE....STANDARDS MET......$/PUPIL
Ottawa Hills Local.......9.......110.3578..........100.00%..........$14,265
Anthony Wayne Local.62.....106.3993...........100.00%...........$8,260
Perrysburg EVSD.......83.....105.5754...........100.00%...........$8,590
Sylvania City............107....104.116.............100.00%.........$11,574
Maumee City............132....103.2144...........100.00%..........$10,626
Springfield Local........239...100.8355...........100.00%............$9,320
Rossford EVSD..........309....99.5766.............96.20%...........$13,848
Northwood Local........386....98.2669.............96.20%.............$8,723
Washington Local.......448....96.8616.............88.50%...........$11,585
Oregon City..............484....96.1731..............76.90%...........$10,366
Toledo City...............708....83.0602..............19.20%...........$13,859

SOURCE
Ottawa Hills has the highest area spend per pupil and the highest ranking of area schools (Note: I only compared data for the K-12 public schools and didn't include "specialty/charter" schools; rankings included Ohio specialty schools). Toledo Public has the second highest and the worst ranking. The highest rated school in Ohio is a charter school with a PI of 115.9375 and $/pupil of $24,038, and the highest rated public school (4th) is Indian Hill EVSD with a PI of 110.9731 and a $/pupil of $15,209.
Toledo Public is a "city" school and has expenses that Ottawa Hills has (Ottawa Hills being in the "rich" area). Anthony Wayne School District has the lowest $/pupil in the area but is second highest ranked in the area.
$/pupil is one metric that doesn't tell the whole story. It's akin to weight. If I told you a guy weighed 235# and was 6' 2", what does that tell you about his physique? I could tell you his BMI was 30.2, but that, again, doesn't give the whole story. According to height/weight charts, the "ideal" weight for this guy is 172-197, if he has a "large frame." A BMI of 30.2 lands this guy just into the "Obese" category. Looking strictly at one stat, like $/pupil, can give you an idea, but would consider Arnold Schwarzenegger 38+# over his ideal weight and "Obese" while he was at his competition weight. $/pupil might tell you something, but it also might not tell you anything without more information.

Des....that is one fuck of a lot of numbers!

I liken myself a mathemagician (perhaps a Sado-MATHochist, too). But, in this case here, I was simply attempting to be thorough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
It gets to be very complex, and one of the things conservatives are right about, and that is throwing money at an issue doesn't necessarily fix it. There is another thing that comes into play here, how much of it gets into the classroom, and that is a biggie. In NJ, Newark has a shit school system, as do some other cities, and yet, if you look at overall spending, the per pupil spending can be higher then the best districts..but when you analyze what gets down to the classroom, different story. For example, schools in Newark have security needs suburban schools don't and it is costly. The big one is special ed, in urban districts, large percentages of the kids are special ed and that is $$$$$.......you get the idea.

quote:

The other problem is what is being used to measure. In your example, those are state minimum skills tests, basic reading and math......so the district that spends 15 has 100% of the kids in compliance, but a district with 14k has low numbers, and one that spends 8k seems to get the same result...

quote:

But that raises the question, what are they measuring? And who is taking the test? The 8k a year district could be a well off, solid middle class enclave, and the kids have educated parents, and could probably pass those tests in their sleep, the 14k district that does bad might be a poor district in terms of people, where they have a lot of immigrants,single parent households, and it is a struggle with the kids......
On top of everything else, those tests are minimums. They started giving those when I was in school, and we used to have competitions to see who could finish them the fastest (I held the record for 3 years, till some smart ass kid wiped it out), we all got 100% and thought it was a joke...we took them in high school, and I could have gotten 100% when I was in 7th grade......and in the district in your graph with 8k spending, how many of those kids go on to college? How many have taken college prep curricula, with AP's and so forth, and gotten into competitive schools? The kids in the 14k district can only get 100% on those tests, but that same school district might be sending 90% of its graduates to college, and large numbers to highly competitive schools, where the kids in the 8k district have much, much lower achievement (I obviously don't know)..
It is the problem with single dimensional stats, they don't give the whole picture.

quote:

It gets very very complicated. I don't know if you are familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers", if not pick it up, it is a great read....in any event, they have studied schools and schooling, comparing inner city and well off kids, and one of the big differences is the summer; what they found is that kids in the inner city, by end of year, had roughly the same level of achievement with their more well off suburban cousins, but what they found was the well off kids had their education re-inforced over the summer (not taking classes, but rather as part of their lives), they were reading and so forth, while their inner city cousins lost ground, and then spent a good part of the next year just catching up to where they had been the prior June......
I always loved my dad, he was great at deploying pompous asses. My siblings and I did generally well in school, were in NHS, near the top in grades, etc...anway, at one of these events, I think it was NHS induction, the principal was going on and on with any parent who would listen to him, about how well kids in the school did, went to ivy league and similar schools, etc, etc..and my dad asked him a question, he asked him how much could he (meaning the school) take credit for that? My dad pointed out that the kids in the school tended to come from families where both parents were well educated, most kids had both parents who went to college or beyond, lot of engineers, doctors and so forth among the parents..and in effect he said you started with great material, so what did you really do to get them to achieve..or did he......:)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

One thing that's always baffled me about the issue of urban poverty is that it usually tends to focus on the larger, "major league" cities, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., while failing to take into consideration that most poverty is in rural areas and the smaller "minor league" cities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat

FR

I don't think the corporations are going to have a sudden change of heart and begin manufacturing in the States again. It is too damn lucrative to do it overseas. Materials are cheaper, labor is cheaper and taxes are much lower.

Also, all of the "progress" China is making comes on the backs of the working poor. And let's not forget all of the folks in the countryside starving and working shit jobs for pennies. I guess it doesn't matter as long as we have sneakers and iPhones, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cordeliasub
I am not sure the problem CAN be boiled down to just two or three bullet points. I think that is part of the problem.
Oh, and AL funds education through sales tax, not property tax...which is part of the reason we are always 48th or 49th....ask an AL educator about proration.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Welfare causes enduring poverty.