EnviroLink Forum

Yes, and someone voting in opposition to me essentially does the same thing now.



No, that's the exact concern.



Doesn't have to be a majority so much as it having to be enough relative to the other groups present. Consideration should also be given to how much of each demographic actually votes, not only how much of each comprises an area.



If you're equating "poor" with those living at or under the poverty line, maybe. I'm looking at it more from a variable standpoint.



The middle class is getting smaller because of the current system. If that is to change, the power of the rich must be tempered and also shifted away from the poorer classes that support them.



A better question would be why it hasn't happened already, given such a champion of the poor and underprivileged has been elected as their representative for I don't know how many terms now. Hard to blame anyone for throwing the poor under the bus when they've done it to themselves for so long.



Less than not perfect can still be pretty damn good. How much less?



I've acknowledged faults and flaws, that the system isn't perfect. We're simply entertaining an idea. Short of outright agreement with you, how much more consideration should be given?



No, it accounts for the fact that humans are imperfect beings.



You mean the more I don't provide a satisfactory answer to your questions, the more you believe the plan is flawed.





Yes, there is always the risk of injury with physical activity. You think the risk is higher for custodial work as opposed to P.E. or recess? I fail to see how early work experience doesn't qualify as education especially when there is no risk of being terminated. Are knee-jerk reactions necessarily bad? Is this a knee-jerk reaction or perhaps and idea from someone who's been around the block and knows what works off the top of their head?



Your data clearly showed that doctors today are making inordinately more than they did in 1900. I thought inflation, maybe, but the numbers looked so much out of the ballpark that I didn't give it further thought. What'd I miss?



Evidence that we pool more intensive resources into medical training today than we did 100 years ago, which translates into better, more valuable physicians...really?



An act of bad luck? Huh?



Nothing, you're just getting "colorful" with the outcome's description based on what is considered fortunate and what is not. We could call it a spell, a curse, or if there is good luck, a blessing.



Nah, luck is just a way of describing how the chips fell.



What claim?



Long enough to find work or, if necessary, adapt to where I no longer need it.





Yes, I'm just giving you the business.



I agree wholeheartedly.



I know. Doesn't make a hell of alot of sense to me either. On the flip side, fostering a destructive social model, generation after generation, might give a clue that some demographics couldn't care less about education in the first place.



Good thing no one's made that claim.



As can the requirement on who/how many must agree in order to change X.



Ahh, there was only one scenario. My bad, read too fast.



There needn't be a majority...only a majority of votes.



It doesn't. I agree that the poor component is growing, for other reasons, but it will eventually be too late to do anything to reverse the trend. What do you suggest?

_________________
TANG SOO!

You know better than that. The current opposing vote on negates a vote, but a vote WEIGHTED higher than yours would do more than just offset.



How can they do that when they are not a majority? Your claims are not backed up by facts.



Sorry, but that is pure BS. Unless there is a majority vote there is no passage of anything in the US. Thus, unless another group agrees with that view it does not happen and if that passes your claim is invalid concernign the poor giving themselves anything.



Poor voters generally do not vote as often nor as consistently as those making more money, so this goes against your position too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#cite_note-18

In developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor

USA (1988) Turnout

50.1 %

Income (Quinitile)

Lowest 20%: 36.4 %
52
59
67
Highest 20%: 63.1





What variable would that be other than "not-rich"? It seems everything in this plan is an undefined variable ...





OK, how then is the poor vote, which is the lowest turnout of all of the groups causing this change exactly? It seems the cause is more in line with the wealthy earning more and not allowing the rest of the groups to have any share.



The poorer classes vote in support of the rich? Yet the rich would have their votes weighted more than the poor to dilute this effect?





You would have to provide some specifics there as that makes no sense. How long has there been a problem with educational equality? I know there is still a divide here regardless of how hard some try to correct it. The wealthy want to take money from the public schools to offset some of their costs in private schools even now. One of the local school boards made the national news when a conservative majority came in and immediately gutted the socio-economic diversity plans which had been hailed as on of the best in the nation. Now that majority has been replaced because the schools were screwed up in the process.



Really? They voted to dissolve the public school system because the wealthy could afford private schools? That was mostly racial but the economic lines run very close to the racial lines. I see nothing in the way of data to support this calim at all.



Except in this case it is a lot less than not perfect. Near the level of epic fail.



For weighted voting based on what appears to be assumptions? None.





How does it do that? It shows the concept is beyond imperfect, but that does not cause any corrective action.



No, the more flaws that cannot be satisfactorily supported by facts nor explained the less likely this plan is to work. Now I give it only a ~30% chance of being tried and then a ~85% cahnce that it would fail outright.





Custodial work. There are cleaning supplies, electrical equipment, and the like which are not normally a concern.



Except the risk of termination is more along the lines of a permanent termination. What would being taught to clean do for you in the study of science, math, or languages? Not very much. Considering the level of education provided in many of the poorer areas, the loss of any class time would be bad.

That seems to be the basis for the failure of the plan. There is a basic failure to see the obvious.



No, but the probability they are is higher since there is no thought put into them.



Right, and perhaps there will be a magic lamp that gives us the answer too.





The fact I did not give data for doctors for one. Not many doctors earn $17,593.00 or less a year.





You have supported a claim with another claim. How much of the relative resources were put into medical training in the two periods?






Yes it is. If you have the best business plan in the world and sufficient capital for twice more than the average growth curve for a business of this type, but a simple act of bad luck can offset all of the planning and preparation and kill that business.[/quote]



You do not understand an event consisting of bad luck happening?





You can play with semantics all you like, the cause and effect are still based on random acts which cannot be controlled or predicted .... luck.





If that is the extent of your understanding of the impact of luck, I cannot explain it any more simply. Good or bad would describe how the chips fell and the fact they fell would be described as luck.





"I'm not as concerned with that as I am the existing poorer classes multiplying on their own."





So how exactly do you no longer need a job to stay out of poverty? These "off the cuff" assertions are harder and harder to integrate into the position.






So how did the poor minorities do that to themselves?





Sort of like ignorance not being corrected and thus creating a perpetual cycle? Wait, that is one of the causes of poverty according to some ecperts.





How then do you make the claim the poor have done all of this damage to themselves? Or are you saying it is not an assumption and there will be data following?





Only AFTER the number agrees or there is a significant civil war.






How is there a minority of votes when the poor are not a majority compared to the middle class and have a lower level of voter turnout? All of the data is against this claim.





Election reforms. Taking the corporate donations out of the election process and eliminated the super PACs so the elections are not as much bought by the highest bidder. Fact checking of ads and independent ads correcting inaccurate claims which are not tied to any party or election. Term limits might also be necessary.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Still with ya. Just busy again.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Likely story ... everyone knows there is still a recession so there is nothing going on.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

An unusual concept on the worth of teachers to society .....

http://times-journal.com/news/article_1 ... 3ce6c.html

He needs to make enough that he can say no, in regards to temptation. ... Teachers need to make the money that they need to make. There needs to be a balance there. If you double what you're paying education, you know what's going to happen? I've heard the comment many times, ‘Well, the quality of education's going to go up.' That's never proven to happen, guys.
"It's a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach.

"To go in and raise someone's child for eight hours a day, or many people's children for eight hours a day, requires a calling. It better be a calling in your life. I know I wouldn't want to do it, OK?

"And these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It's just in them to do. It's the ability that God give 'em. And there are also some teachers, it wouldn't matter how much you would pay them, they would still perform to the same capacity.

"If you don't keep that in balance, you're going to attract people who are not called, who don't need to be teaching our children. So, everything has a balance."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Correct, and you very well know that some votes should be weighted more than others. The trick is coming up with a system that works and one where a sufficiently meaningless number of folks cry foul.







Actually, that's exactly what I was trying to say. An the underclass grows, so does sympathy for it. It will garner support from other groups--to a point. Having such influence on other groups doesn't negate their ability to get what they want out of government, it only enhances it.



It works against it, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it.



Think there might be a good reason behind that, or are we sticking with the notion that someone is simply throwing another under the bus for none other than bigotry?



No no, variable as in measurable income. You can draw lines anywhere you want and call the slices what you will. The weighting curve remains a function that, granted, we've yet to define, but I think you get the idea.



It's not just the poor vote allowing this to happen, unfortunately. The middle class is effectively voting against itself.



The poorer classes vote in support of the rich? Yet the rich would have their votes weighted more than the poor to dilute this effect?

That's an interesting perspective. My take on it is that you have a group that doesn't sufficiently value education in the first place and another with common sense enough to keep from pissing away revenue.



Data to support what claim, that people are responsible for their own plight?



And that's based on what data, exactly?



Are we having fun yet?



Same way we do it now.



Corrective action for what, exactly? The only change is in voting. Laws regarding controlled substances would remain unaffected. Are you trying to tell me that the middle class is over-medicated and that we'd devolve to a state of collective drug addiction?



Well, you're a lot more generous than I on the being tried part, at least.



Alright so the risk is too high to consider, you're saying.



Except the risk of termination is more along the lines of a permanent termination.[/quote]

Really?



Or perhaps, hardly a loss at all. My early jobs did squat for me with regard to science, math, and languages. Though they did teach me what work was and how to interact with people. That's probably key here.



Is there not, or have they been faced with a similar scenario enough such that it becomes instinctive?



So you're unwilling to entertain the notion at all then because, perhaps, someone's going to die from performing custodial work and miss out on all that great education they'd otherwise get at the underfunded school. Maybe, if we simply threw more money at it, we'd learn in a few years what some folks know now. Then again, maybe we won't.



Then sub medical service workers where I've said doctors. Magnitude of the increases over time are the same.



If you want unit hours of schooling, training, and the difference in sheer volume of literature now vs. then, I don't have the numbers, sorry.





I understand an act, an event, and how the outcome can be described, yes. It sounded to me like you were describing one that was targetting failure--i.e. an act of bad luck. A case of it, maybe.



Risk, confidence, neither or both of which is necessarily quantifiable....chance.



No, falling is simply an event. How they fell, where they ended up, etc., can be described in terms of luck whether it be good or bad. Are you using the terms luck and chance interchangeably?



You'll have to take my word that I am concerned. Are you suggesting that the poorer classes aren't multiplying?



It's not off the cuff nor difficult to understand. I will find work or I will adapt so that I no longer need to work. It's that simple. Now, I may by definition fall into poverty, but that won't matter either because I would no longer be an economic factor anyway, at least not on paper.




For one, allowing their own racial bigotry to get in the way of improving themselves.



Right, and the cause of that cause....see my previous comment.



Other than the fact of their continued existence and the path they appear to be going on their own, what data do you need?



That's not necessarily so bad. Where might we be today without the early 1860's as we know it?



What % chance of happening do you give this?



Sheesh, I get my balls busted from all directions!

_________________
TANG SOO!

No, your premise is that some votes should be weighted more than others. I see no real difference in that approach from eliminating some people from voting at all and there should always be a meaningful number of people who would always oppose such a position.









This would tend to indicate the weighting would not have any effect since the group with the highest weight can have said sympathy and still vote in a way you seem ot oppose.



It does negate it because the premise was supposedly to prevent the poor from voting things for themselves, which cannot occur if they are not the majority and also do not vote. The weighting would thus have no real effect on the outcome of the elections given the facts of voting, but would go a long way in discriminating against a portion of the population.



Bigotry would play a very large part in the situation given the history of discrimination in the southern states. I know of one county that eliminated the public school system rather than desegregate it. That tells us a lot about the reaons for educational inequality in that area and in areas with similar histories.





Yes, I have the idea there is no good way to try to work such a division in the real world.





But you are trying to give the middle class more weight .... to correct the problem .... by allowing it to vote against itself.



I suppose the lack of education would tend to cause the benefits of an education to be lost, especially in an area with a large historical bigotry factor.



Yes, you know one generation after the more or less granting of civil rights should have made everything equal from that point onward ..... right?



The data you provided, of course .... that is why it is an epic fail.



Define fun ....





If it is the same way there is no reason for the changes then, right?



Haven't you said the middle class should have more weight in voting and that it also votes against itself, which clearly shows no corrective trend with the change.



There are a lot of folks who dislike the poor who would love to see their vote removed from elections in any way possible.



Higher than the laws normally allow now.



Really? [/quote]

Imagine a child mixing two cleaners by mistake. One has ammonia and one is bleach base. A small room could lead to a very small box.



You went to a public school in a poor district? The education and work is sufficiently different from work in place of education during the school day.



Or the instinct is based on some other factor.





No, I am unwilling to entertain the notion because the situation would be the children working a menial jobs instead of being educated. The odd thing is that was a fairly similar set of descriptions as was indicated in the information on the educational levels in the Delta.



Maybe a better system could be built rather than just "throwing money" at the problem. some indepth programs would be helpful.



The magnitude of increases over time ARE very similar for the AVERAGE wages as well as the medical service. That is not inordinately more in my view, but it may be in yours.



They are interchangeable. The chance is a probability, which is luck. Good luck if the outcome is in your favor and bad luck if it is not, because there is not a 100% probability of either failure or success.



They are increasing, but you claimed they were doing so on their own.





So you just change the definitions?




Their racial bigotry keeps the educational system underfunded in their areas?



Ahh the poor want to be poor due to their bigotry of other races?



Data showing they are actuall going on their own would be a good start. Assuming it is their fault is a common fault with many Libertarians who have no direct experience with poverty.



I was pretty bad for a very large portion of the US population during that period and for a long time afterward.



That depends on how many of the GOP are in Congress at the time. They tend to support the corporate incentives a little more than the Democrats


'That is because you deserve it so much ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Makes me tough.

Consider the last word yours, my friend.

_________________
TANG SOO!