More Americans Are Living in Poverty, Census Bureau Says

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/national/26cnd-cens.html?hp)


WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 — The number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.3 million last year, to 35.9 million, while those without health insurance climbed by 1.4 million, to 45 million, the Census Bureau reported today.

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories.

(more)

[blackfox]

Thought about posting that myself...third year-in-a-row that there have been increases in % unemployed and uninsured...quite a Legacy GW has built...

Even if you disagree with my assignment of blame, it is a depressing and sobering statistic of the State of our Union...

[Neserk]

I had planned on posting this but I couldn't get in. Weird.

[mactastic]

And released a month early to keep it as far from the election as possible.

Hell of a recovery we've got going on here. Jobless, poverty stricken, and health care costs rising at 3 or 4 times the rate of inflation. But hey, the stock market is up, so someone's making money.

[Neserk]

I guess this is evidence of a recovery economy. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

I guess this is evidence of a recovery economy. :rolleyes:

No, just "turning the corner."

[Neserk]

No, just "turning the corner."

I think we are going the wrong way... We need to turn in the other direction.

[Leo Hubbard]

I want to know if the raise in the number of people in poverty (percentage wise) is equal to the raise in the deffinition of poverty?

[Neserk]

The reality is a lot of people in CA live in poverty but aren't recognized. This is because the cost of living is so high and they don't take that into consideration. Poverty is a absolute # related to income.

[pseudobrit]

The reality is a lot of people in CA live in poverty but aren't recognized. This is because the cost of living is so high and they don't take that into consideration. Poverty is a absolute # related to income.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html

The poverty line has always been pretty low.
It is an indicator of extremely low income, not merely substandard earnings.

[Chappers]

45 million officially living in poverty, a bit sad for a president leading a moral crusade across the world on how to do things.

[skunk]

Interesting especially when you consider that that's not far short of the entire population of England.

[takao]

Interesting especially when you consider that that's not far short of the entire population of England.

or many times the population of a smaller country ;)

well i'm not surprised

[Desertrat]

Does anybody have any info about the "who" of the uninsured? That is, we know that major corporations provide health insurance, as do the feds, many cities, and state agencies.

However, I know that some counties in Texas do not. I know that many small businesses cannot afford the premiums. I'd guess that many young entrepreneurial types don't bother, whether or not they can afford the insurance.

As far as the poverty numbers, aren't they swelled by the influx of illegals, the criminal border jumpers from Mexico and other places?

Don't these numbers reflect the problems with the inner-city ghetto people? People who don't learn marketable skills aren't employable and thus have no chance at escaping poverty or having health insurance...

I imagine the changes in style of employment affect the numbers. More part-time, multiple-job people, for one thing. More temps, who often are tied in with worker-supply companies which provide no benefits. (This is speculative; I dunno for certain.)

'Rat

[stubeeef]

Boy - Osama attacks, wallstreet crashes 7+ months before the election even, averice & gread ie accounting scandal from the 90's, and NAFTA - this is W's fault?

Wow why don't we blame him for earthquakes too!

Why is no-one blaming the admitted Vietnam war criminal kerry for his vote to go to war?

Did anyone see Ed Koch last night on CNN, he is for Hillary in 2008 but Bush 2004. Called kerry the biggest flipper he had ever seen :p Said he against W's domestic policy, but pro aggresive foriegn policy, he said he didn't think the Dem's and kerry had the guts for it.

Has kerry apologized for his 527 group that compared Bush to hitler? Hadn't heard yet.

Poverty is no laughing matter, I grew up in it. We got our clothes from salvation army, and we lived in my grandparents basement. Had a drunk deadbeat dad.

This is indeed a sad stat, but one that I feel (thursday morning QB as I've been taught) will begin to decline over the next 2 years.

While security, and terrorism suck our economy dry with new infrastructures, there will be problems no matter who is Prez.

Thanks for the soap box, I'll step down now :cool:

[Desertrat]

stubeeef, you're seeing that oh-so-popular Blame Game in action. The point is not to understand why anything occurs. It's to assign blame, particularly if the finger can be pointed at Bush.

'Rat

[Hoef]

It is an indicator of extremely low income, not merely substandard earnings.

It is around $18K/yr right? .... All relative, in many countries this is a sizeable income. But then I cannot vision myself living for $1K/mo either :(

[stubeeef]

Here is a good site to begin understanding poverty.

http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/mission/up2.htm

Each country has a different stat or "line". A recent Google has been interesting when looking at other countries like UK, Australia, and france.

BTW, how many here have started and been successful with a new small biz (or large) and have W-2 employees? Mine failed, my own fault, but capital expenditure tax write-offs allowed me to try.

Anyone here making less than $100,000/yr feel they are paying to little in taxes? Do you feel you can decrease poverty faster by paying taxes or give it directly to an organization of your choosing?

You know how charities and tax deductable organizations have to let you know how much of each $1 goes to the admin of the charity. I wonder what the government % would be if they were required to do that?

I am guessing, i know that is dangerous here, but I bet poverty in LA is different than poverty in rural Nebraska. The povery stat my hide many or be very high due to averaging. After all the US is huge, both in area and population.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, stubeef, the costs of living vary dramatically. My area is ultra-low, omitting car payments and health insurance which are pretty-much the same everywhere.

Lots of news articles about comparative costs of housing, across the nation. That seems to be one of the largest variables, along with state taxes.

My wife started a small crafts-oriented manufacturing business 30 years ago. She worked up to around 15 employees, although burnout and changes in user patterns have her down much lower now. But, successful through the years.

'Rat

[stubeeef]

jokingly, so don't troll me folks. Yea Desertrat, it reminds me of the sam kinason comedy routine, telling the hungry living in the desert to go to were the food is.

Not joking now; maybe they ought to go were low income jobs give a better standard of living. Then the local shortage of workers for low income jobs in high cost of living areas would cause the wages to rise and end poverty through better allocation/distribution of assests.

I need to write a paper on this.

[Desertrat]

During one of our porch-gathering sessions, enjoying some suds, somebody got to griping about the low wages extant in our mostly-tourist area. I popped off with what has become one of the definitions of Terlingua: "Living in Terlingua is a statement that money's not important. If it were important, you'd go where the money is."

I travel a lot, and take back roads whenever possible. I've seen a helluva lot of places where the folks who live there would rather stay, poverty or no, than to go "where the money is". But, they're numbers in the "how much poverty?" game.

'Rat

[Leo Hubbard]

Does anybody have any info about the "who" of the uninsured? That is, we know that major corporations provide health insurance, as do the feds, many cities, and state agencies.

However, I know that some counties in Texas do not. I know that many small businesses cannot afford the premiums. I'd guess that many young entrepreneurial types don't bother, whether or not they can afford the insurance.

As far as the poverty numbers, aren't they swelled by the influx of illegals, the criminal border jumpers from Mexico and other places?

Don't these numbers reflect the problems with the inner-city ghetto people? People who don't learn marketable skills aren't employable and thus have no chance at escaping poverty or having health insurance...

I imagine the changes in style of employment affect the numbers. More part-time, multiple-job people, for one thing. More temps, who often are tied in with worker-supply companies which provide no benefits. (This is speculative; I dunno for certain.)

'Rat
Don't forget rich people who taken a year off for vacation is officially added to the poverty level because they had no income for that year.

Or the fact that our poor tend to be considered rich in other countries. Or the fact that countries with double digit unemployment think we should follow their examples in getting rid of poverty so we could have double digit unemployment too.

[Chappers]

Don't forget rich people who taken a year off for vacation is officially added to the poverty level because they had no income for that year.

Or the fact that our poor tend to be considered rich in other countries. Or the fact that countries with double digit unemployment think we should follow their examples in getting rid of poverty so we could have double digit unemployment too.

Where did that information come from?

None of it changes the fact that 45 million Americans are in poverty by American standards.

[IJ Reilly]

Does anybody have any info about the "who" of the uninsured? That is, we know that major corporations provide health insurance, as do the feds, many cities, and state agencies.

By definition, most of them are working. People without any means get Medicaid. The reasons these numbers are steadily rising is because fewer employers are providing health care benefits of any kind, or at rates their employees can afford. FWIW, these numbers would be significantly higher if it hadn't been for the Heathy Families initiative.

[skunk]

Don't forget rich people who taken a year off for vacation is officially added to the poverty level because they had no income for that year.
Oh, come on, Leo! You know that's rubbish! If "rich people" take time off, they don't lose their income. That's the whole point of being rich!

Or the fact that our poor tend to be considered rich in other countries. Or the fact that countries with double digit unemployment think we should follow their examples in getting rid of poverty so we could have double digit unemployment too.
Of course it's all relative. It's not impossible to have single-digit unemployment and relative prosperity. Anyway, these people in "poverty" are not all unemployed, are they?

[Leo Hubbard]

Oh, come on, 'Rat! You know that's rubbish! If "rich people" take time off, they don't lose their income. That's the whole point of being rich!


Of course it's all relative. It's not impossible to have single-digit unemployment and relative prosperity. Anyway, these people in "poverty" are not all unemployed, are they?
Now me and Rat are the same person?

It is simply for the year X the census people calculate everyone whose income was below 7,000, or whatever the current poverty level is and all those who fall under it regardless to their net worth are considered in poverty.

It is a shame a large number of them work for Wal-mart though :(

[skunk]

Now me and Rat are the same person?
Corrected, and apologies to 'Rat. :rolleyes:

It is simply for the year X the census people calculate everyone whose income was below 7,000, or whatever the current poverty level is and all those who fall under it regardless to their net worth are considered in poverty.

It is a shame a large number of them work for Wal-mart though :(
Exactly my point.

[Desertrat]

We've been all through this before, last time poverty numbers were publicized. But, anyhow...

I still believe there is a significant amount of "skew". For instance, the definition is predicated upon cash income. It does not include "in-kind" values such as subsidized housing, among other things.

While they are indeed in poverty, I really don't see why I should have concern about the status of illegal, criminal border jumpers. I'd wonder a bit if their US-style poverty is worse than that from whence they came.

Purely attitude: We spend one helluva lot of money providing twelve years of public schooling. If the combination of parents/student fails to take advantage of this, such that Darling Precious, the "Graduate", exits with no marketable skills, why are we so eat up with "compassion" over this segment of the "poor and poverty stricken"?

I don't really know how a society oughta deal with those who make a career out of bad decisions. But I'm surely fed up with the idea that somehow they are deserving of support from the working taxpayers...

'Rat

[mactastic]

I don't really know how a society oughta deal with those who make a career out of bad decisions. But I'm surely fed up with the idea that somehow they are deserving of support from the working taxpayers...

'Rat

Prison or school, the working taxpayers are paying either way 'Rat.

[mischief]

Prison or school, the working taxpayers are paying either way 'Rat.

Bingo. With no emphasis on useful education and a HUGE emphasis on punnishment it's very much no-win for those without trustfunds.

[Thomas Veil]

Speak of the devil. Around here we have the dubious distinction of being the No. 1 city in terms of poverty (http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1093599224164580.xml).
Cleveland experienced the highest poverty rate among America's big cities last year, with nearly a third of its people in poverty, according to new figures released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

And nearly one-half of Cleveland's children were among the poor, again the highest rate among American cities with populations of 250,000 or more.

Both numbers stunned and discouraged people who monitor the region's economy and its impact on families.

"Oh, my God," said Claudia Coulton, a social scientist at Case Western Reserve University. She said the city has hovered high on national poverty rankings in recent years, but this is probably the first time it topped such a list.

...Some of those hardships were highlighted last year in a Plain Dealer series called "Children Left Behind." The analysis showed how Cleveland, when compared with other big cities, consistently ranked last in a number of quality-of-life indicators for children, including poor housing, poverty and single parenting. The newspaper found that in some Cleveland neighborhoods, infants were dying at rates that rival Third World countries like Guatemala.
Yup. Economy's getting better. Turning the corner. Any time now. Yup.

[Chip NoVaMac]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/national/26cnd-cens.html?hp)

Here is the Washington Post Link (you beat me to it, sort of):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26_2.html

And the Wash Post article for those that don't want to register:


Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row

More Also Lack Health Coverage

By Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A01

The number of Americans living in poverty or lacking health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003, the Census Bureau announced yesterday, reflecting a job market that failed to match otherwise strong economic growth.

Overall, the median household income remained stagnant at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to 12.5 percent -- 35.9 million people -- last year, from 12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline, and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million children lived in poverty.

As expected, the number of people without health insurance grew last year, to 45 million -- an increase to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent. White adults, primarily in the South, accounted for most of the increase. The proportion of people receiving health insurance through an employer fell to 60.4 percent, the lowest level in a decade, from 61.3 percent.

The census report provided hard numbers to anecdotal evidence that the recent recovery has missed certain regions and segments of the population. An additional 1.3 million Americans fell below the poverty line in 2003, as incomes dipped for the poorest 20 percent of the population. An additional 1.4 million became newly uninsured.

"This recovery has failed to reach those in the bottom half," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute.

As President Bush prepared to head to New York for the Republican National Convention, yesterday's data gave Democrats an opening for picking at his perceived weakness on traditional bread-and-butter issues.

"While George Bush tries to convince America's families that we're turning the corner, slogans and empty rhetoric can't hide the real story," said Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential nominee. "Under George Bush's watch, America's families are falling further behind."

Bush, campaigning in New Mexico, had no comment. Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans said the census data looked "backward in time at an economy that was substantially weaker" than it is today. He predicted that the numbers will improve as Bush "continues to press extremely hard to create the right conditions and business climate" for job growth and broader health coverage.

Yet the census report stood in sharp contrast to an economy and a stock market that grew briskly in 2003, especially in the second half of the year. "The impact of a persistent jobless recovery is all over these results," Bernstein said.

With fewer people working and fewer small businesses offering health coverage, the uninsured figure is likely to remain high until the unemployment rate drops to about 4 percent, said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

"It's not just about how many people have jobs, but it's about the kind of jobs they have," he said. "Even though people are employed, they are less likely to have access to coverage."

In this region, more people were without health coverage in 2003 than in 2002. In Virginia, the uninsured rate rose to 13.3 percent from 12.2 percent; in both Maryland and the District, it rose to 13.6 percent from 12.8 percent.

The national poverty rate declined from 1993 to 2000, when it reached a low of 11.3 percent. In the next three years, 4.3 million more people fell below the poverty line, and the median household income dropped by more than $1,500 in inflation-adjusted terms.

Locally, poverty rates rose in Virginia to 10 percent from 8.9 percent, and in Maryland to 8 percent from 7.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau's two-year averaging. In the District, it declined 0.7 percent, but, at 16.9 percent, it remained higher than the national average.

The poverty line is not a single, consistent number; it varies with time and family size. In 2003, the average poverty line for an individual was $9,393. For a family of four, it was $18,810. Despite the recent increase in poverty rates, the rates remained lower than the average for both the 1980s and the 1990s.

Economic issues -- including the availability and affordability of health insurance -- remain top concerns among voters. In several recent Washington Post and Gallup surveys, voters gave the president no better than a 51 percent approval rating on his handling of the economy, and in a head-to-head matchup with Kerry on economic matters, Bush trailed 41 percent to his challenger's 52 percent.

Yesterday's report showed that several swing states saw an increase in the poverty rate, the percentage of uninsured or both -- including Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

"It's definitely not the news that the president was hoping for," said Rea S. Hederman Jr., senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Children made up an especially large segment of the newly impoverished, accounting for more than half of the overall increase as 733,000 more youngsters slipped below the poverty line. Similarly, the number of families in poverty headed by a single mother jumped 1.5 percent, to 3.9 million.

Sheldon H. Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the rise in poverty represents fallout from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Because the new policy shifted government benefits to reward those who work, single mothers who were employed received additional assistance when jobs were plentiful but are struggling now that the economy has 1.2 million fewer jobs.

"They did fine when the economy was booming, and even in the early part of the recession," he said. "But now there's been an increase in the number of women who have no work and no welfare."

Hederman disagreed with Danziger, noting that the child poverty rate, although up for the year at 17.6 percent, is still well below the 20.5 percent it hit in 1996.

"You've seen a lot of people who left poverty and who haven't returned back to it even after the economic downturn," he said.

Single mothers were not helped by the fact that the earnings of women overall suffered, declining by 0.6 percent. Women made 76 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2003, compared with 77 cents in 2002. Others who felt the sting included Hispanics, whose median income dropped 2.6 percent last year.

Viewing the increase in poverty by race, Asian Americans were hit hardest, but census officials said the rise appeared to be a statistical anomaly resulting from a small sample size.

Since 2000, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by 5.2 million people, or 13 percent.

"The latest data indicate that loss of insurance is of particular concern for middle-income and low-wage workers," said Karen Davis, president of the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health and social policy trends.

More Americans were enrolled in government health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare than at any time in the past two decades. Last year, 26.6 percent of the population was covered by government health insurance, the highest percentage since 1995.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program appeared to be the leading reason the number of youngsters without coverage did not rise, even though millions more fell into poverty.

At the libertarian Cato Institute, Michael Cannon, the director of health studies, attributed the rise in uninsured to government regulation. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said it was the Senate's fault, even though Republicans control both houses of Congress.

"The big failure is not what is happening in the administration. We are doing everything we can," he said in a conference call. "Individuals in the United States Senate have failed to adopt the president's proposals dealing with health care."

Proposals to cap malpractice awards, to provide tax credits for individuals purchasing insurance and to create small-business insurance purchasing pools "show a president that is leading and a Congress that is not," he said.

The Census Bureau normally releases its income, poverty and health insurance figures in September. It moved the release date up a month to make it coincide with the release of a separate set of data. Democrats have charged that the timing is suspicious, given that many people take vacations in August and could miss the bad news.

Senior polling analyst Christopher Mustie contributed to this report.

[Chip NoVaMac]

And released a month early to keep it as far from the election as possible.

Hell of a recovery we've got going on here. Jobless, poverty stricken, and health care costs rising at 3 or 4 times the rate of inflation. But hey, the stock market is up, so someone's making money.

Also just a day or so before the "courtesy" period on campaign issues due to the RNC Convention.

Read a column in the Wash Post today that made a reference to Cheney's not supporting a Constitutional amendment against Gay Marriages was timed to over shadow the announcement of the RNC Platform that supports that and much more against Gay marriages and unions. Guess what TV and Radio covered that day? Even the web News sites, overlooked the platform.

Just getting more ticked at ALL - the press on both sides, as well as both the parties. Yet it seems that EVERYONE is playing games with the electorate.

[Chip NoVaMac]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html

The poverty line has always been pretty low.
It is an indicator of extremely low income, not merely substandard earnings.

This is one of my gripes about the "poverty level". The level for a single person is just under $9,400. Here in the DC area, such a person could not live as they could in any other area. For us in the Dc area it leads to multiple families living in town homes or apartments built for a single family.

It is time that the government takes in account regional and Metro area stats in determining the "poverty level". This will give the electorate a real view on the problem. And it will give the electorate and politicians an accurate view of the areas of the country that needs attention. It would also be away of the "faith based initiative" a true sense of where they need to be.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Interesting especially when you consider that that's not far short of the entire population of England.

Do you by chance know how many of your country live in the "official definition of poverty"?

One of the big differences you may see also is that we have almost 16% of the population without health insurance. And just slightly more than 60% of our population are getting insurance through their employer.

But that 60% figure is misleading, as I have found out personally. My own insurance covers most without deductibles, and reasonable co-pays. My lover had insurance through his old company (for those that have followed various threads here) that was as good if not better than what i have (he was given a private room for his appendix operation by his insurance company). His current insurance as a "temp' requires a 20% co-pay and a $2000 "out of pocket expense" at wages that are 25% lower.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Does anybody have any info about the "who" of the uninsured? That is, we know that major corporations provide health insurance, as do the feds, many cities, and state agencies.

However, I know that some counties in Texas do not. I know that many small businesses cannot afford the premiums. I'd guess that many young entrepreneurial types don't bother, whether or not they can afford the insurance.

As far as the poverty numbers, aren't they swelled by the influx of illegals, the criminal border jumpers from Mexico and other places?

Don't these numbers reflect the problems with the inner-city ghetto people? People who don't learn marketable skills aren't employable and thus have no chance at escaping poverty or having health insurance...

I imagine the changes in style of employment affect the numbers. More part-time, multiple-job people, for one thing. More temps, who often are tied in with worker-supply companies which provide no benefits. (This is speculative; I dunno for certain.)

'Rat

The states have changed their employment rules. As an example in Virginia the ABC stores, which are state run - do not get Holiday Pay or any of the other State perks as an employee. AND they are REVENUE producing big time.

I have heard from others seeking state and local jobs, that the benefits (in particular health coverage) have been stripped to the point of why take the job?

[Chip NoVaMac]

It is around $18K/yr right? .... All relative, in many countries this is a sizeable income. But then I cannot vision myself living for $1K/mo either :(

With you being the DC area you can see it is laughable that a single person can live above the $9,400 level.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Not joking now; maybe they ought to go were low income jobs give a better standard of living. Then the local shortage of workers for low income jobs in high cost of living areas would cause the wages to rise and end poverty through better allocation/distribution of assests.

I need to write a paper on this.

If it were that simple. Moving requires money. My lover and i looked to moving to SF (no jokes please) after 1996. By some accounts this was before the boom there, or at least in the middle of. The cost of moving, certifying our cars, and other cost made it hard to do. Same way when we looked at Las Vegas.

In an ideal world you would be right. But workers at McD's here in DC don't earn that much more than the McD workers in Norwich, CT earn today. And at those wages they can live better up there than they can here in DC. For those that might not know Norwich is the gateway to the Las Vegas of New England - with the Foxwood's and Mohican Sun Casinos. To me it is a case that that rich get richer.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Don't forget rich people who taken a year off for vacation is officially added to the poverty level because they had no income for that year.

Or the fact that our poor tend to be considered rich in other countries. Or the fact that countries with double digit unemployment think we should follow their examples in getting rid of poverty so we could have double digit unemployment too.

Depending on how they account for their time off. Can you provide stats on these people that skew the results?

[Chip NoVaMac]

We've been all through this before, last time poverty numbers were publicized. But, anyhow...

I still believe there is a significant amount of "skew". For instance, the definition is predicated upon cash income. It does not include "in-kind" values such as subsidized housing, among other things.

While they are indeed in poverty, I really don't see why I should have concern about the status of illegal, criminal border jumpers. I'd wonder a bit if their US-style poverty is worse than that from whence they came.

Purely attitude: We spend one helluva lot of money providing twelve years of public schooling. If the combination of parents/student fails to take advantage of this, such that Darling Precious, the "Graduate", exits with no marketable skills, why are we so eat up with "compassion" over this segment of the "poor and poverty stricken"?

I don't really know how a society oughta deal with those who make a career out of bad decisions. But I'm surely fed up with the idea that somehow they are deserving of support from the working taxpayers...

'Rat

One, the numbers in "poverty have been climbing since 2000.

As to the "illegals", I can state from from experience here in the DC area, that it goes much deeper. When my lover went in to the hospital with his appendix; I saw first hand people that did not have insurance. Some of those that were willing to talk about their problems. indicated that the issue was a choice between insurance - or a roof and food on their table.

As I said in another thread, would it not be nice that everyone had a 4 year degree and the wages that demands. But not everyone is able to meet that standard. And in some ways it is good, since there would be no one to to serve you in a store. Maybe you would prefer that everything be done through the web?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Speak of the devil. Around here we have the dubious distinction of being the No. 1 city in terms of poverty (http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1093599224164580.xml).

Yup. Economy's getting better. Turning the corner. Any time now. Yup.

Yours is one of the points that I was trying to make. As bad as the DC area may seem to be to me at times, there are areas that need more attention. And I would have a lot more respect for either candidate that addressed specific areas. For it is my belief that in the end that other areas of the country could benefit.

[Chip NoVaMac]

My apologies, i tend to work from the top down in responding to threads.

I personally hate it when some quotes 3 to 6 people in a single post.

Again my apologies.

Chip

[pseudobrit]

It is around $18K/yr right? .... All relative, in many countries this is a sizeable income. But then I cannot vision myself living for $1K/mo either :(

It's even worse. Check my original link:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html

And as to Leo's riduculous and incorrect assertion that rich people can be officially poor, this link (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html) details some of the definitions and info that go into census work used for poverty status determination.


Earnings
Unemployment compensation
Workers’ compensation
Social security
Supplemental security income
Public assistance
Veterans’ payments
Survivor benefits
Disability benefits
Pension or retirement income
Interest
Dividends
Rents, royalties, and estates and trusts
Educational assistance
Alimony
Child support
Financial assistance from outside of the household
Other income

As you can see, a rich person taking a year off is not going to be in danger of slipping into official poverty.

As usual, Leo is flat-out wrong.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It's even worse. Check my original link:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html

And as to Leo's riduculous and incorrect assertion that rich people can be officially poor, this link (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html) details some of the definitions and info that go into census work used for poverty status determination.



As you can see, a rich person taking a year off is not going to be in danger of slipping into official poverty.

As usual, Leo is flat-out wrong.

You forced me to look at the table more closely.

What I see is that a group of 9 people living under the same "household" (according to the way I read the chart you provided) they would only have to earn about $4500 each to be considered to be "poverty". One there is an issue when you have 9 adults living in a residence that is only to house by "design" 2 adults and 2 to 3 children.

At the 9 times $4500 level, in the DC area this provides just a basic level of living. And then you have to place into account the fact that you are placing 9 people into an area that was meant to take 4 to maybe 6 (as children).

hen I try to to look at the chart in other ways, my eyes go cross eye and gloss over. It just looks as if the US Federal Government is looking to make the problem of the "poor" "look" than it is.

[Neserk]

Don't forget rich people who taken a year off for vacation is officially added to the poverty level because they had no income for that year.

Or the fact that our poor tend to be considered rich in other countries. Or the fact that countries with double digit unemployment think we should follow their examples in getting rid of poverty so we could have double digit unemployment too.


Wow, are you desparate or what? That has got to be the most pathetic attempt at justifying Bush's complete failure in the domestic arena that I have ever seen.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It's even worse. Check my original link:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html

And as to Leo's riduculous and incorrect assertion that rich people can be officially poor, this link (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html) details some of the definitions and info that go into census work used for poverty status determination.



As you can see, a rich person taking a year off is not going to be in danger of slipping into official poverty.

As usual, Leo is flat-out wrong.

As to Leo's comments here; I look at many of them to responses by the RNC bot's.

[To Leo: Some of what you post does cause me at least to look at your sources and look for others.

Despite what some conservatives might think, the Wash Post is not the liberal paper that one might think. They, according to their Ombudsman - supported Bush in Iraq and the WMD.

Where were you when when Cheney was was standing against Gay marriage, yet the RNC Platform was unavailing ever further against the right of Gay's getting even "basic" rights?

If the media was as as liberal as you think, do you don't think the RNC issue would have gotten as great of the press coverage?

You should have complained that the RNC platform was not given "equal' coverage. Yet that would not have met you final agenda, would it have?]

[Chip NoVaMac]

Wow, are you desparate or what? That has got to be the most pathetic attempt at justifying Bush's complete failure in the domestic arena that I have ever seen.

You haven't seen my other comments......

[Neserk]

By definition, most of them are working.


Most of the kids I teach are living in poverty. They are the poorest of the poor. Their parents often work 3-5 jobs between the two of them. Is it any wonder they don't have time to read to their kids at night for 20 minutes? They are either working or exhausted.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Most of the kids I teach are living in poverty. They are the poorest of the poor. Their parents often work 3-5 jobs between the two of them. Is it any wonder they don't have time to read to their kids at night for 20 minutes? They are either working or exhausted.

And in some ways that shows the problems we have.

As you are aware my other half has between jobs; with a major operation - among other factors. And in many ways we are much better from some "families" here (I say this because i know that for fact that we have two families with children living in ONE town house).

I'll be honest, my lover kept hoping on the promises of a new job. the family next to me does not live on that "false" hope. I guess that is the difference between the two of us.

From day one of my layoff, i was putting in applications for what ever job I could find. Now to be honest from some of your comments about education. My lover has been looking for grants/schalorships/ and the such. He has had a hard time finding "funds" to continue his education. They tend to look at what he "earned" last year. This seems to be based on "national' levels.

To be honest, in his case it is "last minute". But it seems to be a slap in the face of those that say that those that need help in gaining a higher education need not apply if they fall on hard times.

He and i and are not looking for a "handout"; bit it would be nice that the powers looked past the last years earnings, and were able to to look at current earnings.

[Neserk]

Many run into the same problem, my sister for one. She took a break from college and worked. Then when she went back they "assumed" she'd be earning the same amount of money. :rolleyes: Well, duh! Some do, some don't. You can't assume.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Many run into the same problem, my sister for one. She took a break from college and worked. Then when she went back they "assumed" she'd be earning the same amount of money. :rolleyes: Well, duh! Some do, some don't. You can't assume.

And the question is, was the break their choice or was economic factors.

I am sorry. I am just ticked by some of the other threads that make it seem that anyone that "needs" money can get it in order to continue their degree.

[Neserk]

I am sorry. I am just ticked by some of the other threads that make it seem that anyone that "needs" money can get it in order to continue their degree.


That is because they don't understand what it is like to not be wealthy...

[Chip NoVaMac]

That is because they don't understand what it is like to not be wealthy...

How well we BOTh know it now. My parents, being depression era children - I better understood "planning: for the "leaner" days. But since the law does not allow us to "combine" our incomes, there should be a greater understanding of the realities.

[Desertrat]

mischief, could you provide some examples of what you mean by "meaningful education"?

My grumping stems from frustration. We've had some forty years of LBJ's War on Poverty and the spending on social causes of well over a trillion dollars, and no matter which party controls Congress or the White House, things get worse for the poor.

Sure, it's legitimate to be concerned about the plight of so many in Cleveland. It's phony as all getout to play the Blame Game. The state of "The Economy" might well play a part in the increase in the number of poverty-folks, but the real question has to do with why was there already such a large number? The problems in Cleveland have been reported for many years.

"More money" just cannot be the answer. It hasn't worked in the past in re schools or poverty. Something's gotta be changed in the way we deal with the curricula and other problems in the schools; something's gotta change in how we deal with the hard-core unemployed.

'Rat

[Neserk]

Something's gotta be changed in the way we deal with the curricula and other problems in the schools; 'Rat


So much for not playing the blame game.

The problem isn't in the schools, at large. Although some individual classrooms may contribute.

The problem is what happens at home.

I still say we need to have birth control in the drinking water. You shouldn't be allowed to have children until you can demonstrate you can properly care for them. That isn't just poor people. I know poor parents who do an incredible job with their children. Middle class and wealthy people are just as bad. But that often has more to do with character than actual education.

[takao]

mischief, could you provide some examples of what you mean by "meaningful education"?

My grumping stems from frustration. We've had some forty years of LBJ's War on Poverty and the spending on social causes of well over a trillion dollars, and no matter which party controls Congress or the White House, things get worse for the poor.

Sure, it's legitimate to be concerned about the plight of so many in Cleveland. It's phony as all getout to play the Blame Game. The state of "The Economy" might well play a part in the increase in the number of poverty-folks, but the real question has to do with why was there already such a large number? The problems in Cleveland have been reported for many years.

"More money" just cannot be the answer. It hasn't worked in the past in re schools or poverty. Something's gotta be changed in the way we deal with the curricula and other problems in the schools; something's gotta change in how we deal with the hard-core unemployed.


hm i don't know much about how poverty is in the US... but doesn't it go up and down following the periodicaly up and downs from the economy (~10-12 years as i recall the economy classes) ?

i personally don't think that unemployment rate has much to do with it... there are country with higher unemployment rates who have 'less bad' poverty ....

i don't know perhaps the problem is a more fundamental problem ..but i'm no expert

[zimv20]

I still say we need to have birth control in the drinking water. You shouldn't be allowed to have children until you can demonstrate you can properly care for them.
...or stop drinking water ;-)

[mypantsaretight]

hm i don't know much about how poverty is in the US... but doesn't it go up and down following the periodicaly up and downs from the economy (~10-12 years as i recall the economy classes) ?

i personally don't think that unemployment rate has much to do with it... there are country with higher unemployment rates who have 'less bad' poverty ....

i don't know perhaps the problem is a more fundamental problem ..but i'm no expert

Careful, you've hit on the truth. You're liable to be labeled a Communist or Anarchist or Fascist or somesuch for daring to suggest that there is a fundamental problem with the American system. (see my sig)

I suggest you flagellate yourself in a purification ritual and then proceed directly to your nearest retail store and spend excessively. ;)

m

[takao]

I suggest you flagellate yourself in a purification ritual and then proceed directly to your nearest retail store and spend excessively. ;)


thank god we have a botle of a local cola brand available: "american cola"
i hope a few glasses of that will cure me ... because it's saturday 21:30 and i would have to wait untill monday..if it isn't any better tomorrorw i'll make a short trip to the next mcdonalds with the car ;)

[Peterkro]

:eek:

[Rebel]

More kids live in extreme poverty

Washington - The number of American children living in extreme poverty has risen sharply in recent years, an advocacy group said in a recently released report. Following is their breakout:

Approx. 932,000 Black children

Approx. 733,00 Hispanic children

Approx. 1.8 million White children

The organization defines extreme poverty as an American family with after-tax income that is less than half what our Federal government defines as the poverty line. The 2001 figure of 3.4 million American children living in extreme poverty can easily be near a total of 6+ million living in poverty in 2003.

[zimv20]

link, please

[Rebel]

link, please


www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html

[pseudobrit]

www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html...


an advocacy group said in a recently released report

You again totally didn't answer the question.

[Rebel]

You again totally didn't answer the question.


I'm practicing to be a politician.

You can find many different poverty related links here also.

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/links/povlinks.htm

[pseudobrit]

I'm practicing to be a politician.

You can find many different poverty related links here also.

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/links/povlinks.htm

No one asked for more links; what's been asked for is the report from this "advocacy group."

[zimv20]

No one asked for more links; what's been asked for is the report from this "advocacy group."
it's amazing, isn't it? such a simple request. i spent 5 minutes looking through some of the census site for those figures, couldn't find them; all the data i saw was arranged differently.

so either i wasn't looking in the right place (point is, why should i have to? i was given a link), the data was an amalgam of different data (the method of which should have been explained), or rebel's making it up and hoping no one calls him out on it.

[Rebel]

it's amazing, isn't it? such a simple request. i spent 5 minutes looking through some of the census site for those figures, couldn't find them; all the data i saw was arranged differently.

so either i wasn't looking in the right place (point is, why should i have to? i was given a link), the data was an amalgam of different data (the method of which should have been explained), or rebel's making it up and hoping no one calls him out on it.

It took me forever to refind this document. Here is the direct link.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/pov-m07.shtml

I never make things up, Zim.

[zimv20]

It took me forever to refind this document. Here is the direct link.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/pov-m07.shtml

i appreciate the link, but why the wild goose chase at census.gov?

[Desertrat]

Neserk responded, "So much for not playing the blame game.

The problem isn't in the schools, at large. Although some individual classrooms may contribute.

The problem is what happens at home."

The entire problem stems from "at home"? Huh?

Nowhere did I say that schools are the entire problem. And, I'm fully aware of home problems; I believe I've commented on that before.

It just strikes me that when "creating self esteem" as a schooling priority exists, something's wrong, somewhere. When kids exit highschool unable to name counties around their own, or adjacent states, or not use a ruler's fractions, or make change, something's wrong somewhere.

To carry your argument to a bit of an exaggerated conclusion, Neserk, are you implying that parents order their kids to NOT learn simple arithmetic, grammar, history and geography? To NOT have any interest in the world around them?

'Rat

[wwworry]

My grumping stems from frustration. We've had some forty years of LBJ's War on Poverty and the spending on social causes of well over a trillion dollars, and no matter which party controls Congress or the White House, things get worse for the poor.

....

"More money" just cannot be the answer. It hasn't worked in the past in re schools or poverty. Something's gotta be changed in the way we deal with the curricula and other problems in the schools; something's gotta change in how we deal with the hard-core unemployed.

'Rat

One thing I like about these boards is going out in google land to do research.

From what I have read the first paragraph of yours I quoted is not true and the second paragraph is true.

"Before 1970, at least a quarter of Americans over 65 had incomes below the poverty line, but by 1999 the poverty rate for elderly Americans had dropped to an all-time low of 9.7%."

I urge you to read this link. (http://www.civilrights.org/research_center/civilrights101/economicjustice.html)


These were the new programs:
MEDICAID: Government subsidized health care program for the poor, roughly comparable to Medicare.
F00D STAMPS: A supplemental program providing the poor with vouchers for the purchase of food.
JOB CORPS: A vocational training program aimed at providing job training for the poor.
HEAD START: A pre-school program designed to give poor children early educational opportunities, and, by all accounts, one of the most successful of the Great Society's anti-poverty efforts.
SEVERAL SMALLER PROGRAMS: Guaranteed Student Loans, Community Action Agencies, and Legal Service.

direct cash assistence (welfare) is actually from 1935
only the community action agencies program turned out to be a failure and it was canceled in the early 1970s

read this too from the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.18869/news_detail.asp)
Conclusion

Today hardly anyone has a good word to say about the war on poverty.

Conservatives say it failed because it ignored human nature, rewarded bad behavior, focused on equalizing outcomes instead of equalizing opportunity, and relied too heavily on the government rather than the private sector.

Liberals say it failed because we were never serious about it, because we didn't spend enough money, and because the affluent were ultimately unwilling even to equalize even opportunity, much less results.

Yet despite this broad consensus, I think that when we look at those programs one by one, they provide evidence that the biggest social programs generally achieve what they seek to achieve. That raises a question, though. If these programs do what they are supposed to do, why are so many people convinced that they failed.

The answer, I think, is that while the nominal goal of these programs is to reduce poverty and improve material well-being, they have been sold to the public as cures for a multitude of other ills, ranging from crime and ignorance to substance abuse and family breakdown. Unfortunately, that was--and is--claiming too much. Eliminating material deprivation can make only a tiny dent on problems of this kind. Some of these problems can be tackled directly. We can improve students' school achievement, for example, and we seem to have some success in treating certain types of substance abuse. The remedies for crime and family breakdown lie much deeper, requiring changes in the fundamental character of our society, not just a few innovative government programs. But that is a story for another time.

[Rebel]

i appreciate the link, but why the wild goose chase at census.gov?


It was the only link I could find within my search. I could not remember where I originally found that article. I bench-marked it along time ago, and had it sitting within my site's article section.

[Chip NoVaMac]

i appreciate the link, but why the wild goose chase at census.gov?

Much of the data was published in the Wash Post recently, and supports the general idea.

I have an issue with the definition of "poverty". I would like to see it mean something along the lines of:

[quote]
A person or family that can not meet the basic needs of a roof over their head, basic food on the table, and basic clothes on their back in order to keep a "good" job. Add to that basic transportation (car or mass) and even the most basic yearly medical care.

I think that if we used that date (based on regional specifics) you would find over 25 - 30 percent of the US population living in "poverty".

[Rebel]

Neserk responded, "So much for not playing the blame game.

The problem isn't in the schools, at large. Although some individual classrooms may contribute.

The problem is what happens at home."

The entire problem stems from "at home"? Huh?

Nowhere did I say that schools are the entire problem. And, I'm fully aware of home problems; I believe I've commented on that before.

It just strikes me that when "creating self esteem" as a schooling priority exists, something's wrong, somewhere. When kids exit highschool unable to name counties around their own, or adjacent states, or not use a ruler's fractions, or make change, something's wrong somewhere.

To carry your argument to a bit of an exaggerated conclusion, Neserk, are you implying that parents order their kids to NOT learn simple arithmetic, grammar, history and geography? To NOT have any interest in the world around them?

'Rat

Noblest of Careers

Teachers believe they are above the rest and consider themselves even more important than the very children they teach. However, how noble are these actions?

Supporting a Union that has systematically destroyed public education in America just to enhance its own power.

Working 180 days per year and demanding more money than the 260 day/year workers that pay your salary through outrageous taxation.

Failing to adequately educate over 50% of American students.

Willingly shutting down a school with a strike just to further line your pocket.

Retiring 10-15 years earlier than many Americans, drawing more money in retirement pay than many families earn while working.

Making little or no contribution to your retirement fund, forcing future taxpayers to foot the bill.

Threatening parents and students with cancellation of popular programs unless a referendum is passed.


Demanding double digit raises when much of the country is out of work.

Graduating students unprepared for college or trade work. (i.e. Philadelphia)

Demand pay raises for seniority and post-secondary education, neither of which guarantees that your value as a teacher increases.

Exerting political and economic influence to extract ever more money from a largely defenseless community.

Promoting self-enriching education fads, such as smaller classes, while opposing true school reform.

Working to prevent parents from choosing the best school for their child.

Pushing governments into adding mandatory programs, then hypocritically complaining about "unfunded mandates".

Arrogantly presuming that yours is the "noblest of careers".

More tax abuse articles here. http://www.ucanation.org/gifts.htm#Teachers

[Chip NoVaMac]

Rebel,

How many others jobs like the teachers take and do:

Continue education (both at their own and of course state expense during those 80 "free" days, and their own time?

Work beyond their 40 hours a week grading or doing lesson plans?

Doing the work of what the parents should be if they weren't too busy chasing their own careers or their own pleasures.

Push for referendums from cheapskates that look to cheat the state taxes by buying off the internet?

Maybe they want to maintain not "double digit increases" in most the country. Sure makes a nice sound bite. But the reality they are in the fight to make ends meet.

In some cases they spend more time with the children than their own parents do. Why? So the parents can have the two SUV's in the driveway. Way too much home than they can truly afford. Paying for classes in whatever or whatever sport; instead of finding the time themselves to spend with their child. Relegating the upbringing of the child to others.

Many of the other comments seem to be locally based. Here in the Greater DC area, teachers are for the most part among the "unwashed" under the Conservative agenda.

If the teaching positions are so great in the benefits, why don't you take advantage of them? Maybe the daily grind doesn't allow you to slack off for even a minute of your day. Maybe it is because if you make a "mistake" of not seeing "what others saw"; your career is over? Not margin for error when we deal with your children. Unlike a "mistake" in your job, your "boss" might be able to overlook it.


I speak from one that did substitute teaching for about four years. Also as one that counts many teachers among my friends and associates. Despite the many "benefits" that you seem to think that teachers have, I decided that the stress was not worth it. Thank heaven for those that do....

[pseudobrit]

Noblest of Careers

Teachers believe they are above the rest and consider themselves even more important than the very children they teach. However, how noble are these actions?

You obviously don't know any teachers. There's no ego involved.

Supporting a Union that has systematically destroyed public education in America just to enhance its own power.

The union protects teachers from total exploitation and keeps school boards from using them for non-professional tasks. I've seen it in action.

Working 180 days per year and demanding more money than the 260 day/year workers that pay your salary through outrageous taxation.

Teachers get paid only for the months they teach. Most choose to have their payroll spread out over the entire year. If you want them to work more days, you're going to have to pay more.

Elementary teachers work a minimum of 70 hours a week.

You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Failing to adequately educate over 50% of American students.

Where do you get that figure?

Willingly shutting down a school with a strike just to further line your pocket.

********. Most strikes happen due to terms other than pay.

Retiring 10-15 years earlier than many Americans, drawing more money in retirement pay than many families earn while working.
Making little or no contribution to your retirement fund, forcing future taxpayers to foot the bill.

WTF? Teachers don't retire when they're 50. And you only draw as much retirement as you put in.

Where are you getting this absolute horse**** from?

Threatening parents and students with cancellation of popular programs unless a referendum is passed.

Huh? Are you using anecdotal evidence to make a nationwide case?

Demanding double digit raises when much of the country is out of work.

Teachers have a right to earn whatever they can. That's the marketplace for you.

Exerting political and economic influence to extract ever more money from a largely defenseless community.

LOL You really have no clue, do you? School boards have teeth. They're way more out of control than the unions. They're comprised of non-educators who are trying to move up in politics; as such, they try to grandstand and play hardball to make a name for themselves.

Promoting self-enriching education fads, such as smaller classes, while opposing true school reform.

Working to prevent parents from choosing the best school for their child.

Pushing governments into adding mandatory programs, then hypocritically complaining about "unfunded mandates".

Arrogantly presuming that yours is the "noblest of careers".

More tax abuse articles here. http://www.ucanation.org/gifts.htm#Teachers

Blah blah blah ucanation.

Go peddle your ******** propaganda somewhere else, I'm sick of your SPAM.

You've been warned, and you continue to spam us with this ****.

[Rebel]

You obviously don't know any teachers. There's no ego involved.
You are so out of touch with the realities of life.

The union protects teachers from total exploitation and keeps school boards from using them for non-professional tasks. I've seen it in action.

Teachers get paid only for the months they teach. Most choose to have their payroll spread out over the entire year. If you want them to work more days, you're going to have to pay more.

Elementary teachers work a minimum of 70 hours a week.

You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

********. Most strikes happen due to terms other than pay.

WTF? Teachers don't retire when they're 50. And you only draw as much retirement as you put in.

Where are you getting this absolute ********* from?

Huh? Are you using anecdotal evidence to make a nationwide case?

Teachers have a right to earn whatever they can. That's the marketplace for you.

LOL You really have no clue, do you? School boards have teeth. They're way more out of control than the unions. They're comprised of non-educators who are trying to move up in politics; as such, they try to grandstand and play hardball to make a name for themselves.



You are so out of touch with the realities of life. It saddens me to see American's bowing to the great teacher Gods. The Sheepal shall follow the great educators. The most wanton abuse of citizen tax dollars occurs within our educational ranks. You are too freakin blind to see it.

What $54,000 really means for a teacher

Is $54,000 per year too much or too little for a grade-school teacher in Grayslake? In a letter April 13, a citizen said his wife's $54,000 salary with two degrees and 10 years' experience was "far below private industry salaries."

First of all, let's not confuse a master's degree in education with a master's degree in nuclear physics. Advanced degrees in education are designed of, by and for the teachers for only one purpose - higher salaries.

In the parallel universe that is our public school system, salaries are based on pseudo education credits, not on performance. Three recent examples include visiting a feed grain dealer, visiting a dairy farm and, my own personal favorite, going to Arlington Park racetrack. Each of these two-day so-called courses was worth two credits and result in pay increases for the teachers. Imagine putting "visited dairy farm" on your resume.

Let's assume that this person would agree that a 40 percent increase, to $75,000 a year, would put his wife at or near "private industry salaries." That would put her $300-a-day teacher salary just slightly lower than her $312-a-day private industry salary because in the real world people work 12 months or 240 days a year not nine months or 180 days a year.

So what would she give up for $12 a day? Well, her current 10-minute round-trip commute easily could turn into three hours a day if her new $75,000 job took her out of Lake County. That means she would be gone at least 11 hours a day as opposed to the seven hours a day called for in her current teachers contract. That's three bucks an hour. And what about the summers off and the two weeks at Christmas - is that worth $12 a day?

Of course, in the private sector, his wife could be fired at any time - no tenure in the real world we non-teachers work in. What is a lifetime guaranteed job worth? Maybe 30,000 former Motorola employees could answer that question for them.

And while the wife has been averaging 6 percent annual increases recently, the rest of us have been averaging less than 3 percent. The wife should plan on fewer and smaller increases.

Finally, the $4 billion taxpayers contributed to the Teachers Retirement System last year equals $21,000 per teacher, about four times what the average private-sector company contributes for that same $54,000 salary. That means taxpayers are paying his wifes $54,000 salary and $21,000 pension contribution at the rate of $416 a day vs. $341 a day for the $75,000 salary and $8,000 pension contribution in the private sector. Making $75,000 in the private sector would mean a cut in pay for his teacher wife.

So if the wife is willing to sit in rush-hour traffic, give up her summers with the family, take a cut in daily compensation, allow her employer to fire her at will and accept Social Security as her main source of retirement funds, then I suggest she take the first $75,000 job she can find.


You are probably the type that falls for the standard catch phase from schools that class size are too large.

Class size this bears repeating

America has the best teacher-student ratios in the world. We spend more tax money per student than any other industrialized nation. Yet our children consistently place lower in all the major education measurements that are taken. Why? Because teaching is no longer a passion for many. It has turned into a career path, a way to make a good buck, have summers off, and get fantastic retirement packages. All paid for by the taxpayers of America. Our great school system, which helped shape the world in our heyday, is deteriorating ever since governments and unions started dipping their hands in the pot.

Lancaster University's Management School analyzed data from 2,657 schools in Britain over a five-year period (1993-1998). Researchers applied a process called "data development analysis," which is used by economists to measure the technical efficiency of industry. The study's authors made the following observations on class size: There has been a lot of debate about the effect of class size on pupil performance. Many academic reports have noted that the pupil-teacher ratio has little or no effect on academic achievement. For instance, China averages 70 students per teacher, and their 8th grade student’s rank 3rd in math and 1st in science. Another example, Korea ranked 2nd in math and 5th in science and has a 32 to 1 student teacher ratio. Italy has an 11 to 1 student teacher ratio and ranks 23rd in math and 21st in science. In America, we average a 16 to 1 student teacher ratio and our 8th grade kids ranked 19th in math and 18th in science.

It is plainly evident that ratios do not mean a thing. What is truly important is placing the right teachers in front of our children, and paying them the right amount of money. One bad teacher can ruin a generation of our children.
Look around your community; you will see massive abuses happening right in your own back yard - especially in our school systems. For Instance, Driver’s ED Teachers are some of the highest paid within our school systems. The average take-home pay equals $64,000. Driver Ed teachers also have the highest percentages of six-figure wage earners. More than 11% of High school driving instructors made at least $100,000. Since most of the Drivers Ed teachers are also the sports coaches, what message is this sending to the community? Obviously, our school systems are placing a higher emphasis on sports, than on educating our children.

Here is a lesson that some Texas teachers taught our children.

One Last Lesson for the Kids

DALLAS - Thousands of Texas teachers are rushing to retire before a lucrative loophole in Social Security law closes, but there is one catch: They must first spend a day washing windows or scrubbing floors.

Texas teachers do not pay into our nation’s Social Security system. Instead, they participate in a state pension fund. But a loophole in the law allows them to receive national Social Security benefits if their last day of work before retirement is in a job traditionally covered by Social Security (i.e. janitorial work).

School districts around the state helped teachers out by hiring them to work janitorial or maintenance jobs for just a day. The loophole ended Wednesday.
The loophole allows teachers to double-dip into retirement benefits and collect both their state pension and national Social Security money, of which they provided no monetary input into.

Congress changed the law in February after auditors estimated that the loophole could cost our nation’s Social Security system $450 million. Auditors also reported that one-fourth of all Texas public education retirees, or 3,521 people, had used the loophole in 2002.

Some argue that school employees are taking advantage of the system.
"The fact that something is technically legal doesn't make it appropriate or ethical," said David John, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "A teacher is supposedly instilling in my children a sense of responsibility and a sense of worth, and you don't see that when you sneak around a rule and find a cute exception."

The loophole's use has been most extensively documented in Texas, but there are about 2,300 state and local retirement plans nationwide. Some of those employees could have used the loophole, auditors said.


I personally think you are a dimwitted piece of ****, but I would never attack you personally, or your beliefs in life. I may post materials that contradict what you say, but I would not stoop to personal attacks on a persons well being or on their chosen profession and path in life.

I would appreciate the same respect in return.

[stubeeef]

Now, now,.......
I find it interesting that those who consider themselves so rightous, are daily defining themselves by acts to the contrary.

Rower,.....please recalibrate us all.

[wwworry]

I personally think you are a dimwitted piece of ****, but I would never attack you personally, or your beliefs in life.
???? :(

[Rower_CPU]

Rebel has been banned for continued spamming and a personal attack.

pseudobrit, please tone it down a notch or three.

Thanks :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Rebel,

Could you post the actual links to what you posted? Sounds as if these are op-ed pieces not "real" news articles. they are also slices of different school districts, and may not be representative of the country as a whole.

The article you posted about Texas and Social Security does require a link to support the argument IMO. For my limited knowledge base, Federal law out ranks state law. So with that logic SS would have to be paid by all.

A reoccurring theme of yours is" summers off". Some school systems are moving to year round classes. That is a separate issue. Most teachers don't see the summer off. Some teach summer school (at additional income of course). Others continue their education (as required by the states). Others participate in self enrichment that will benefit their students.

Having done substitute teaching, I can say that teaching is not for the faint of heart. The time they save on the "commute" is used to plan lessons and grade papers. It is the most grueling 7 hours one can do. One has to focus on the standards of learning and keep their eyes on 30 to 40 students and the issues that crop up with them. Let me tell you it is tiring!

Those teachers that take on the responsibility just to have a job don't last long. For many it is hard just to be a "teacher"; let alone a social worker and substitute parent. How many parents today spend 40 hours a week "actively engaged" with their children?

For myself I can count on one hand the number of times that my parents went out and did something by themselves. This excludes the summers that they had us spend with the Aunts and Uncles in CT. You may look at this as my parents "dumping" us for some free time. But it was an extension of the family unit. 400+ miles separated us from the main "family unit". It allowed us to be closer to the "family". During these summers my parents continued to work, so they didn't go off to the islands. I do hope they used the time to energize themselves. To enjoy a bit of life. this is unlike the 13 year old that spent Xmas by himself (in an apartment complex that I lived in); while his mother (single) went off to Las Vegas for the Holidays. [Side note on this: the property manager and I "adopted" the boy during the holidays. We wrestled with "turning" the mother in to Child Services, and felt that at that time it was better for him to remain with her.]

In the end, are there things that can be changed in terms of teachers? Yes. But they are not as dire as you try to paint them to be. I'll admit that my view of teachers is based on the DC areas treatment of them as second class citizens, just well paid baby sitters. can we do better teaching the students? Yes. But is totally the teachers fault? No. They are hamstrung by the standards that are set by the state and Federal governments. Also it is the lack of parental evolvement in their child's learning. Expect more, demand more, get more; is the mantra that parents should be saying.

I will be more point blank to you Rebel. If the teachers job is so "great" why don't you take on the job? I am sure that you would like "summers off". It seems like you would like to have the retirement benefits. You seem to want the 6% increases in your yearly income.

To bring a reality check to your postings. Here is a link that is biased IMO; but still has strong points:

http://www.cta.org/CaliforniaEducator/v4i7/feature_1.htm

Among the points are that they did not see 6% wage increases (as of 2000). That many teachers are "forced" to pay out of their own pockets for supplies for their students. I would love to hear your comments on the above web link. From my reading on the general topic of teachers, the points made seem to be pretty well nationwide.

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, please tone it down a notch or three.

Noted.

It really gets my goat when folks who know less about education than they did when they were in school try to frame teachers as a plague on the nation.

This whole idea of "they only work 8-9 months a year and get paid for all of it!" is pervasive and shows the sheer ignorance of the person who utters it. Everything after that is typically more ignorant nonsense.

Then his retort is that an education degree is a piece of cake. More nonsense. It's one of the toughest degrees to get in my state. How many other degrees have tiered minimum GPA standards? And teachers who get a masters degree don't always get them in education; quite often they don't. My mother's is in English.

People who talk like this are speaking from the stereotypes of 30 years ago, when teaching was what you did when you were deemed too stupid to do anything else.

Their points may have been valid back then, but today it's no different than someone arguing that them there negroes should have separate drinking fountains. It's an antiquated world view based on a reality that no longer exists or matters.

And I'm not sure what it has to do with his stupid tax system anyway. :confused:

[mactastic]

I guess I'm lucky you got to him first Pseudo. I wouldn't have been as kind in my response as you were in yours.