The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

[unofan]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Because I am critical of Obama and the Dummycrats does NOT make me laudatory to the Repugnicans.

Horse hockey. You parrot the GOP line 95 percent of the time. You link to the WSJ opinion pages in about 2/3rds of your posts. You sound exactly like every Fark Independent(TM) out there.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

while not unexpected, troubling news nonetheless....

the disparity between children in America's top suburban schools and their peers in the highest-performing school systems elsewhere in the world.

Of the 70 countries tested by the widely used Program for International Student Assessment, the United States falls in the middle of the pack. This is the case even for relatively well-off American students: Of American 15-year-olds with at least one college-educated parent, only 42% are proficient in math, according to a Harvard University study of the PISA results. That is compared with 75% proficiency for all 15-year-olds in Shanghai and 50% for those in Canada.

Compared with big urban centers, America's affluent suburbs have roughly four times as many students performing at the academic level of their international peers in math. But when American suburbs are compared with two of the top school systems in the world—in Finland and Singapore—very few, such as Evanston, Ill., and Scarsdale, N.Y., outperform the international competition. Most of the other major suburban areas underperform the international competition. That includes the likes of Grosse Point, Mich., Montgomery County, Md., and Greenwich, Conn. And most underperform substantially, according to the Global Report Card database of the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

The problem America faces, then, is that its urban school districts perform inadequately compared with their suburban counterparts, and its suburban districts generally perform inadequately compared with their international counterparts. The domestic achievement gap means that the floor for student performance in America is too low, and the international achievement gap signals that the same is true of the ceiling. America's weakest school districts are failing their students and the nation, and so are many of America's strongest. [emphasis added]

The domestic gap means that too many poor, urban and rural youngsters of color lack the education necessary to obtain jobs that can support a family in an information economy in which low-end jobs are disappearing.....The international gap, meanwhile, hurts the ability of American children to obtain the best jobs in a global economy requiring higher levels of skills and knowledge. This economy prizes expertise in math, science, engineering, technology, language and critical thinking....

....

Parents are the key. Parents need to say that they won't stand for these intolerable achievement gaps. The first step is for parents to learn what quality education is and how it is achieved.

This isn't a game for amateurs. Parents need to use every resource at their disposal—demanding changes in schools and in district offices; using existing tools such as "parent-trigger" laws and charter schools; organizing their communities; cultivating the media and staging newsworthy events; telling politicians and officeholders that their votes will go to candidates who support improvement; even going to the courts. If parents want change, they have the capacity to make it happen, but it isn't easy.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I'd argue there's not a country on the planet that educates a populace less homogeneous than ours.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Hostess to stop making Twinkies?? http://www.examiner.com/article/hos...-jobs-to-go-if-5-pm-thursday-deadline-not-met
The deadline has passed...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578261821798212616.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinionI had said unfunded state and local pension obligations were # 3 in my top then, I think....(after erosion of capital base and terrorism).

[In] California, just 10 individual pensioners will cash $50 million in pension checks from state and local governments over the next 25 years. Already some 30,000 retired California government employees pull in pensions higher than $100,000 a year. One retired librarian in San Diego receives a $234,000 annual pension. Beach lifeguards in Orange County are retiring at age 51 with $108,000 annual pensions plus health-care benefits.

A 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service pegged the combined liabilities faced by state and local pension funds at over $3 trillion. That is more than all the bonded debt officially listed on state and local balance sheets combined. To put the issue in perspective, all the federal tax hikes approved by Congress on Jan. 1 would pay less than 20% of America's state and local pension debt over the next 10 years.

At least the US Postal Service is funding their pensions, which accounts for the "loss" it keeps posting. It is operating close to breakeven otherwise, nearly all of its "loss" is due to required pension funding.

 

[Farce Poobah]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

while not unexpected, troubling news nonetheless....

Did the article say anything about the kids needing to be accountable? or parents being accountable?

Schools will keep lowering the bar as long as the kids get away with doing no real work, and until parents demand their kid be held back until he/she knows enough to be promoted to the next grade.

PS I am not a teacher. Or administrator.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

For those familiar with Thomas Kuhn's work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, this article from the April 2013 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences could be portentious.

The author, a professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Oakland University in Rochester MI, describes a concept which she calls "pathological altruism" which could help explain much of the rancor of our domestic politics today.

Pathological altruism can be conceived as behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable. More precisely, this paper defines pathological altruism as an observable behavior or personal tendency in which the explicit or implicit subjective motivation is intentionally to promote the welfare of another, but instead of overall beneficial outcomes the altruism instead has unreasonable (from the relative perspective of an outside observer) negative consequences to the other or even to the self. This definition does not suggest that there are absolutes but instead suggests that, within a particular context, pathological altruism is the situation in which intended outcomes and actual outcomes (within the framework of how the relative values of “negative” and “positive” are conceptualized), do not mesh.

...

The bottom line is that the heartfelt, emotional basis of our good intentions can mislead us about what is truly helpful for others.
...

The public as a whole would benefit from knowledge that what might feel subjectively altruistic may have negative unintended consequences that both worsen the situation that was meant to be improved and impact other areas negatively.[emphasis added]

A common everyday example is parents who try to shield their children from the natural negative consequences of their actions (e.g., the child fails to study, gets a bad grade, and the parent threatens to sue the school district unless the grade is improved).



Note that the pathological altruist geniunely believes s/he is being helpful! This is a crucial point.

Because people are human, this belief that they are being helpful blinds them to the obvious (to anyone else) observation that the people they are purporting to help, are in fact NOT being helped at all.


I mentioned this article to someone whom I respect greatly, and his first response was, "you mean like government policies that are supposed to help people but wind up making people even more dependent instead?"

Thus we wind up with TWO problems instead of one!

The first problem is the increased dependency of people, where ACTUAL helpfulness would instead be to increase self-reliance.

The second problem is that any attempts to point out the first problem result in the pathological altruist "digging in his/her heels" and becoming even MORE insistent on being "helpful."

The second problem results in highly-polarized politics, as the pathological altruist adopts a defensive attitude of moral superiority, which allows him/her to demonize anyone who disagrees with their policy prescriptions as being "selfish" or "uncaring" when in fact it is frequently the exact opposite which is the motivation.

No one questions their desire to be helpful; people merely say "look at the results: this isn't working." and of course in the ensuing arguments, the people who actually need the help are totally ignored.

 

[brookyone]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Altruism is a disease then. Simply a behavior of a maladaptive nature. Who knew... Did she express any thoughts on "pathological" inhumanity?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

You needed a book to tell you that we sometimes get in our own way? Or is this just another of your, "I'm not implying anything just reporting" bits?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

For those familiar with Thomas Kuhn's work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, this article from the April 2013 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences could be portentious.

The author, a professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Oakland University in Rochester MI, describes a concept which she calls "pathological altruism" which could help explain much of the rancor of our domestic politics today.



A common everyday example is parents who try to shield their children from the natural negative consequences of their actions (e.g., the child fails to study, gets a bad grade, and the parent threatens to sue the school district unless the grade is improved).



Note that the pathological altruist geniunely believes s/he is being helpful! This is a crucial point.

Because people are human, this belief that they are being helpful blinds them to the obvious (to anyone else) observation that the people they are purporting to help, are in fact NOT being helped at all.


I mentioned this article to someone whom I respect greatly, and his first response was, "you mean like government policies that are supposed to help people but wind up making people even more dependent instead?"

Thus we wind up with TWO problems instead of one!

The first problem is the increased dependency of people, where ACTUAL helpfulness would instead be to increase self-reliance.

The second problem is that any attempts to point out the first problem result in the pathological altruist "digging in his/her heels" and becoming even MORE insistent on being "helpful."

The second problem results in highly-polarized politics, as the pathological altruist adopts a defensive attitude of moral superiority, which allows him/her to demonize anyone who disagrees with their policy prescriptions as being "selfish" or "uncaring" when in fact it is frequently the exact opposite which is the motivation.

No one questions their desire to be helpful; people merely say "look at the results: this isn't working." and of course in the ensuing arguments, the people who actually need the help are totally ignored.

So this lady wrote what is likely an exceedingly dense article, and came up with a clever name for her theory, when the friggin' Chinese gave us the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" two sentence proverb ages ago? So what exactly is the "serious problem" that qualifies for this thread -- lack of suitable subject matter for industrial engineers to write about?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

So this lady wrote what is likely an exceedingly dense article, and came up with a clever name for her theory, when the friggin' Chinese gave us the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" two sentence proverb ages ago? So what exactly is the "serious problem" that qualifies for this thread?

The fact that people who believe that they are acting altruistically refuse to acknowledge the very real harm their policies cause to the people they purport to help.

You cite the "teach a person to fish" proverb in an age in which [edit] the number of people in SNAP has increased by[/edit] over 40% since 2007, and yet there are politicians who want to increase that program even more!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Altruism is a disease then?

only a very limited and circumscribed subset, not the entire field.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

is this just another of your, "I'm not implying anything just reporting" bits?

No. I'm saying something quite directly, flat out.

Many so-called "social welfare" programs are causing more harm than they are doing good. We've known that for a while.

What we haven't known is why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some people insist on expanding these obviously-disfunctional programs even more. Now we know why: they can't acknowledge that evidence. People have thought that they would not acknowledge it when it turns out that they are unable to acknowledge it instead.


Her work now offers both sides of the divide a face-saving avenue to compromise.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

No. I'm saying something quite directly, flat out.

Many so-called "social welfare" programs are causing more harm than they are doing good. We've known that for a while.

What we haven't known is why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some people insist on expanding these obviously-disfunctional programs even more. Now we know why: they can't acknowledge that evidence. People have thought that they would not acknowledge it when it turns out that they are unable to acknowledge it instead.


Her work now offers both sides of the divide a face-saving avenue to compromise.

So what is the compromise then? Discontinue the program. Starve it of funding? That's what I've always been curious about, and candidly, is the crux of the problem.

I consider myself fairly conservative, at least economically. My disinterest in the social policies of the more conservative political organizations probably tends to make me more Libertarian than anything, but I've always disliked being pegged as a member of one party/organization or another.

Notwithstanding the fact that I generally believe in that Chinese proverb, that if you give people the tools to fend for themselves they will be much better off than just handing them a check each month, I've made my peace with many of our social programs for this reason.

I do believe there are people out there who truly need that help. They are disabled. They are in need of public assistance to keep from starving. They are in need of housing assistance.

And if there are people gaming the system, as there certainly are in any sort of public handout, so be it. Just like I prefer to let a few guilty men go free to try to keep one innocent man from prison, I prefer to give some cash to those who are undeserving if it means it's more likely that those who truly need the help actually receive it.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

What we haven't known is why...

One you assume a lot by claiming these programs do in fact create more problems than they solve (btw where's your objection to voter ID for doing just that?) and two the concept is in fact not anything new.

So yes once again...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I do believe there are people out there who truly need that help. They are disabled. They are in need of public assistance to keep from starving. They are in need of housing assistance.

And if there are people gaming the system, as there certainly are in any sort of public handout, so be it. Just like I prefer to let a few guilty men go free to try to keep one innocent man from prison, I prefer to give some cash to those who are undeserving if it means it's more likely that those who truly need the help actually receive it.

there is a huge difference between "public" assistance and "government" assistance. that's the paradigm shift that we need. just because people need it and people want to give it does not necessarily imply that the government is the vehicle by which to provide it.

I had real-life experience in Wyoming that was tremendously effective (I am not suggesting we duplicate it, I am saying we could learn from it and adapt it in ways that would fit more populous areas). All social service functions: food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, shelter for the homeless: were provided by the town's churches. the town was small enough and neighborly enough that everyone knew someone who knew someone, so that no one was overlooked. the catholic church handled the food, although it was completely non-sectarian. the protestant church handled the clothes. the LDS handled the shelter (since the town was about half LDS anyway). if you wanted to offer help, you'd contact the appropriate church, even if you weren't a member; if you needed help, someone along your chain of relationships knew who or where to find it.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

You cite the "teach a person to fish" proverb in an age in which 40% of the population is in SNAP...

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm

For argument's sake, we'll use the US population according to the 2010 census, which was 308,745,538.

Doing the math, as of March 2013, slightly under 15.5% of the population was on SNAP; not 40%. If you're going to advance an argument, don't go fudging the numbers when the factual ones are easily calculated from reported statistics. Even if you consider a margin of error in the reported numbers, the only way someone would think 40% of the population is on SNAP, is if they willfully ignored the facts.

Now, we could certainly have the debate that even 15.5% is too high, if you'd like. We'd have to find the reported historical data to discern any kind of trend line though.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm

For argument's sake, we'll use the US population according to the 2010 census, which was 308,745,538.

Doing the math, as of March 2013, slightly under 15.5% of the population was on SNAP; not 40%. If you're going to advance an argument, don't go fudging the numbers when the factual ones are easily calculated from reported statistics. Even if you consider a margin of error in the reported numbers, the only way someone would think 40% of the population is on SNAP, is if they willfully ignored the facts.

Now, we could certainly have the debate that even 15.5% is too high, if you'd like. We'd have to find the reported historical data to discern any kind of trend line though.

My mistake, I meant to write that the number of people on SNAP has increased by 40% since 2007, not that 40% of the entire population was on SNAP.

I can't find the source for that right now; I did find this article from Winter 2011:

Nationwide, about one in ten households receives SNAP benefits, an increase of 33 percent since before the recession began in 2007.

Given statistics and trends from Winter 2011 to Summer 2013, an increase in the number of people on SNAP of 40% since 2007 seems reasonable if it was an increase of 33% then. This is consistent with your estimate, going from about 1 in 10 to about 1 in 8.

We have supposedly been in a "recovery" since 2009: how does one reconcile a "recovery" with such a dramatic increase in people "needing" assistance? Hmm, might this indeed by a symptom of increased dependency after all?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

there is a huge difference between "public" assistance and "government" assistance. that's the paradigm shift that we need. just because people need it and people want to give it does not necessarily imply that the government is the vehicle by which to provide it.

I had real-life experience in Wyoming that was tremendously effective (I am not suggesting we duplicate it, I am saying we could learn from it and adapt it in ways that would fit more populous areas). All social service functions: food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, shelter for the homeless: were provided by the town's churches. the town was small enough and neighborly enough that everyone knew someone who knew someone, so that no one was overlooked. the catholic church handled the food, although it was completely non-sectarian. the protestant church handled the clothes. the LDS handled the shelter (since the town was about half LDS anyway). if you wanted to offer help, you'd contact the appropriate church, even if you weren't a member; if you needed help, someone along your chain of relationships knew who or where to find it.

Well since churches/religions are probably the only organizations responsible for starting more wars, killing more people and causing more misery than governments, you'll have to pardon me if I'm reluctant to turn over the problem of solving all societal ills exclusively to them.

That's great that your local churches were active in helping those in need. I would guess that's pretty typical for most communities.

But I'm a member of the "public". I prefer that we not simply abandon the hungry, homeless and disabled to die on the street, and I've chosen to elect representatives (government) to help me make that happen, at least at some basic level. We can debate inefficiencies in the system, or what the base level should be, but if you leave it to a "volunteer" system, it isn't going to work. I'm going to guess that even in your Wyoming utopia there was government assistance flowing in to those the churches were helping.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Well since churches/religions are probably the only organizations responsible for starting more wars, killing more people and causing more misery than governments, you'll have to pardon me if I'm reluctant to turn over the problem of solving all societal ills exclusively to them.

Not that I buy into FF's argument...esp in regards to the importance of public assistance. But this pov is misleading at best. Christianity and religious institutions in general have not been the direct cause of deaths by Americans in the last couple hundred years (while govts continue to be responsible for wars even today). The above point about the church in this country is analogous to saying Caucasian Americans regularly enslave African Americans and kill Native Americans.

In fact over the last two centuries, Christian institutions have been about as beneficial as one can imagine in the US as they have helped deal with child labor, slavery, womens sufferage, healthcare and aiding the poor (when the government wouldn't or couldn't address these issues). Having said that, the challenges facing this country with the poor are big enough to merit both public and private efforts.