Education and the Wealth Divide

[Rainsford]

Sure, but is that the wealthy's fault?

Plus, plenty of wealthy people have lost everything. Is that the poor's fault.

Why do we continue to blame the success/plight/economic standing of someone else on our own status?

Blaming them isn't required to think that it's a problem, IMO.

The whole concept of a wealth divide doesn't rest on the idea that the rich are evil (or that the poor are lazy, for that matter). It simply acknowledges that income and wealth disparity is increasing in the US, and that this state of affairs causes a variety of issues.

 

[Munky]

Harvard professor says education will fix the problem (but apparently there is no problem, according to him). Stop the presses!

I don't believe such a problem is "fixable" at all, unless you like communism.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Working class families can afford higher education in most states. Just because Harvard costs 50k a year doesn't mean all schools cost that much. If you want to get a degree in the US, there's almost always a way to do it with grants, scholarships, financial aid, part-time school/part-time work, etc etc.

You really need to look a bit further.

Even community colleges are topping $10K a year for TUITION.

When starting salaries, even with a degree, have stagnated the past 10 years or so, carrying a $40K debt right out of college is kind of tough. (How do you get a car? Pay rent? etc. How long do you live with your parents?)

I think there are many FUNCTIONAL degrees out there (engineering being one of them) that stand a better chance of getting a job out of college, but even mine, a masters from Stanford on a MERIT BASED SCHOLARSHIP, took 6 months of looking to find one. This was well before the recession, but at the tail of the last building slump... Employers want experience first, education second.

Now, saying the economic split has nothing to do with it is only semi-valid. It, in and of itself, is true (literally). But when you factor in the correlation between family money and FAMILY, you get the split. Managers are MUCH more likely to hire the son of a relative/friend/associate than a complete stranger and socially, we really do not see much cross-strata mingling...

What does that mean? Well it means that, academically, you can separate out the direct cause and effect to the point where you see that, strictly speaking, having money is NOT the reason that these people get jobs, but when you see what other corollaries apply when you start looking, money becomes a good barometer of the success rate of applicants.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Harvard professor says education will fix the problem (but apparently there is no problem, according to him). Stop the presses!

I don't believe such a problem is "fixable" at all, unless you like communism.

Having a bunch of garbage men with advanced particle physics doctorates only works in Dilbert comics.....

 

[Texashiker]

Sure, but is that the wealthy's fault?

No, it is not the wealthys fault.

Why do we continue to blame the success/plight/economic standing of someone else on our own status?

Do you "really" expect the lazies to blame themselves?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The professor was Gregory Mankiw, who teaches an introductory econ course at Harvard.

I think I've heard his name before in connection with President Bush. If I remember correctly, he's a "no-think" free market moron.

 

[Patranus]

I know people who grew up 'poor' and became very successful.
I also know people who grew up 'rich' and work shit jobs.

It all starts at home with the parents and instilling values in their children and you know.....actually parenting.

 

[crownjules]

No, it is not the wealthys fault.

Do you "really" expect the lazies to blame themselves?

Not everyone can obtain an advanced degree. Not everyone is employable in advanced sciences, business, etc. It's not always about laziness, but that's the easiest way to write it off and not have to make any changes to address the problem.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I know people who grew up 'poor' and became very successful.
I also know people who grew up 'rich' and work shit jobs.

It all starts at home with the parents and instilling values in their children and you know.....actually parenting.

Exceptions do not discount the rule.

The general trend is that those that have, keep, and those that don't, never do.

SOME are lucky enough and talented enough to move forward, and more can be cut by their own "brothers" to end up below, but somehow chirping "Free Capitalism" is just blind.

 

[JSt0rm]

No surprise, he sounds like the rich Republican radicals on here.

Glad to see his class walked out on his ass.

Dude these republicans that sit on these forums all day are not rich. Don't believe that shit for 1 second.

 

[Munky]

Why does everyone assume that the economic divide is a problem? You can't possibly expect everyone to be rich and affluent, no more than you can expect everyone to be over 6ft tall or everyone to prefer women with D-cups.

Some got rich by being smart, and some got rich by plain dumb luck. Conversely, some people are poor because they're at the wrong place at the wrong time, and others because they're lazy or stupid.

And if you're even thinking of dismissing this as some right-wing republican drivel, then I'll point out to you that the very notion that everyone should be "equal" is lefty libnut nonsense that belongs in some fantasy utopian dogma.

 

[fskimospy]

Why does everyone assume that the economic divide is a problem? You can't possibly expect everyone to be rich and affluent, no more than you can expect everyone to be over 6ft tall or everyone to prefer women with D-cups.

Some got rich by being smart, and some got rich by plain dumb luck. Conversely, some people are poor because they're at the wrong place at the wrong time, and others because they're lazy or stupid.

And if you're even thinking of dismissing this as some right-wing republican drivel, then I'll point out to you that the very notion that everyone should be "equal" is lefty libnut nonsense that belongs in some fantasy utopian dogma.

Economics literature identifies excessive income and wealth disparity as having a significant negative effect on GDP growth. That makes it a problem.

 

[Munky]

Economics literature identifies excessive income and wealth disparity as having a significant negative effect on GDP growth. That makes it a problem.

Who's to say what defines "excessive" income disparity? And that's not even getting into a whole different discussion on whether maximum GDP growth is the ultimate goal of a healthy economy.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Munk, it isn't just the divide.

To have a healthy society, you need a good spread. A robust middle class keeps everything moving. Once THAT disappears, you have problems selling anything but Spam and Porches.

The main problem here that people have is not that there are a few uber-rich, but that the money is getting lumped and is NOT spreading in any way shape or form. Add to it, the playing field is being constantly tilted in favor of those that have to not only KEEP it, but make it grow.

If the only thing the rich were doing was making money, less people would be against them, but when you re-write the rules in the process (to your advantage) you are not playing "fair".

You are, by definition, playing by the rules though. But the rules have never had an absolute commitment to morality.

 

[Munky]

Munk, it isn't just the divide.

To have a healthy society, you need a good spread. A robust middle class keeps everything moving. Once THAT disappears, you have problems selling anything but Spam and Porches.

The main problem here that people have is not that there are a few uber-rich, but that the money is getting lumped and is NOT spreading in any way shape or form. Add to it, the playing field is being constantly tilted in favor of those that have to not only KEEP it, but make it grow.

If the only thing the rich were doing was making money, less people would be against them, but when you re-write the rules in the process (to your advantage) you are not playing "fair".

You are, by definition, playing by the rules though. But the rules have never had an absolute commitment to morality.

I agree on that aspect. The rich bending the rules in their favor or getting off the hook for crimes that would land a common person in jail is a problem and needs to be addressed.

 

[JSt0rm]

every third world country on the planet is 1% wealth and 99% poor. With our current trending we will be there one day. We need to break that trend and push for a bigger middle class.

 

[blackangst1]

Not everyone can obtain an advanced degree. Not everyone is employable in advanced sciences, business, etc. It's not always about laziness, but that's the easiest way to write it off and not have to make any changes to address the problem.

Not to mention not everyone has the brain to make it through a masters program at Harvard et al. Or for some, math 101 at the community college. Not being mean, just stating a fact.

 

[blackangst1]

Economics literature identifies excessive income and wealth disparity as having a significant negative effect on GDP growth. That makes it a problem.

So whats the magical number then? Financial equality is impossible, let alone unattainable. And impractical. So what the magic % between rich and poor where the economy is healthy?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I don't see ANYONE in favor of the status quo, mostly Republicans and Conservatives, offering any real solutions. You seem to think this income inequality is a good thing for this country. That somehow having a depleted middle class, large population of unemployed, and a tiny fraction of a percentage hoarding the wealth is a good thing. Let me clue you in on something, we didn't become a great nation that way. We became a great nation by having a booming middle class and a relatively good spread of income across the board.

Countries that have no middle class, tons of poor and unemployed, and a tiny percentage of uber-rich that hoard most of the wealth are almost unanimously third world countries. Is this really the kind of America you want?

I think at the end of the day most honest Americans just want to make enough money to buy a home and raise their families. We can get back there, but it starts by creating a level playing field for all. Remove the loopholes, get money out of politics, strictly enforce banking regulations, and make sure that our free markets truly are free. And what I mean by that is everyone is competing on the same playing field.

One thing I do know without a doubt is that Conseravtives don't want to see a strong Middle class. They want the rich to remain rich and the poor to remain poor. They got theirs, and they don't give a fuck about anyone else. They will never be the solution, so stop looking to them for answers because they don't want this country to be great. They just want to be rich.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't see ANYONE in favor of the status quo, mostly Republicans and Conservatives, offering any real solutions. You seem to think this income inequality is a good thing for this country. That somehow having a depleted middle class, large population of unemployed, and a tiny fraction of a percentage hoarding the wealth is a good thing. Let me clue you in on something, we didn't become a great nation that way. We became a great nation by having a booming middle class and a relatively good spread of income across the board.

Countries that have no middle class, tons of poor and unemployed, and a tiny percentage of uber-rich that hoard most of the wealth are almost unanimously third world countries. Is this really the kind of America you want?

I think at the end of the day most honest Americans just want to make enough money to buy a home and raise their families. We can get back there, but it starts by creating a level playing field for all. Remove the loopholes, get money out of politics, strictly enforce banking regulations, and make sure that our free markets truly are free. And what I mean by that is everyone is competing on the same playing field.

One thing I do know without a doubt is that Conseravtives don't want to see a strong Middle class. They want the rich to remain rich and the poor to remain poor. They got theirs, and they don't give a fuck about anyone else. They will never be the solution, so stop looking to them for answers because they don't want this country to be great. They just want to be rich.

You understand that in order to have a middle class there must be rich and poor. Right? And you do understand that a level playing field doesnt mean financial equality. Right?

Save a few loons I dont see any Republicans saying everything is A-OK and the middle class doesnt need help. Perhaps you can provide something other than an anecdotal link to support your whining? Otherwise its just that. Your post is as absurd as saying the left wish for nothing more than socialism and to punish the wealthy for their success.

 

[LunarRay]

The venue for education can be any place. It can be at a mother's side learning to cook to Johns Hopkins learning to practice medicine... anywhere.

I wouldn't entertain a debate with my local mechanic on the subject of car repair given he's been doing it for many years... since he was 16 and I consider him to be as expert in his field as I am in mine...

When folks evaluate the value of education I suppose it goes to the value of the result being rendered to the purchaser of this result. It seems only fair and reasonable to me for this to be applied rationally... In the case of folks who use their expertise to enrich their own wealth status they can surpass this rational basis many times. So long as what they are doing is legal I've no problem and it should be government's job to insure to the best extent possible regulations exist to insure the application of this talent is fairly applied and there is no risk to the non competitor or collaterally involved person.

When one loses their job after years of performing in that field it is, in my opinion, incumbent on the person to re-educate and on the government to insure job opportunity will exist for this and every person so affected.

 

[cwjerome]

One of the MAJOR problems with our schools, kids are not taught "how to make money".

We are told to get an education and go to work for someone else. The problem is, that is not how you make money.

If this nation wants to address the wealth divide, everyone should be taught how to make money. Then, stop the lies about getting an education and going to work for someone else.

All and education does is create a higher level of worker bees. You have the bees that gather the pollen, and then you have the bees that work on the honeycomb, but they all work for the queen bee.

I'm not a fan of your vision for education. The main purpose of education should not be to teach the masses new and innovative was to make money. Our culture should not necessarily be based around everyone striving to make as much money as possible, get the biggest houses and coolest cars. Education should be about expanding knowledge, thinking, and understanding in general, and particularly in a person's chosen area of interest. I'd like to think we are more than a one size fits all automatons destined to continually race with each other for more money.

I'm as pragmatic as the next guy and money is nice, but it should not be the standard.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

In the field of education, it is now believed that it is not so much economic factors that determine the kid's future, but the social capital that is available to him while growing up. Social capital can mean a lot of things, ranging from how much time the parent spends helping his son out with his homework to the social network the parent is part of in his community.

While of course economic factors tend to influence one's social capital (such as poor working parents unable to spend time with their kids even if they wanted to), research has shown that even poor, uneducated parents can make a big difference in how their kid performs at school, if they just show that they care. But one thing poor, uneducated parents have difficulty doing is teaching their kids to "dream big" and being able to explain about different occupations and the workings of the job market.

The problem is in the past, people believed that if you just ensure that all kids receive the same quality of education, by pumping money into the system, it would take care of everything, and make all problems go away. However, researchers have found that education at school often cannot make up for the "damage" done at home, at least not if you treat all the students as the same (anyone surprised by this?).

This is why the focus for equality in education has changed from equality of condition (similar school, similar funding, similar programs) to equality of results (ensure that all students achieve a minimal standard of performance, even if it means the gov has to spend more money on kids falling behind, than on normal/gifted students).

And while researches are often conflicting, some researches have shown that when it comes to your career and how much you make, your education is less important than you would like to believe.

 

[fskimospy]

So whats the magical number then? Financial equality is impossible, let alone unattainable. And impractical. So what the magic % between rich and poor where the economy is healthy?

Give me a break, it's not that exact. Our current levels are through the roof, and that's most likely a problem. Fixing it helps everyone. Our system inherently embraces inequality to some extent, and there's nothing wrong with that, but things have gotten really out of hand and you know it.

 

[micrometers]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-17/wall_street/30062886_1_nyu-linkedin-profile-train

This is the real face of the education and wealth divide. In this, an irate commuter berates working people for daring to interrupt her while talking on her cell phone.

Education is as much about prestige and the wealthy reinforcing their privilege. It also saddles people with insane amounts of debt. It is a bad proposition all around IMO.