Financial literacy classes in HS

[quote name='dmaul1114']Well the key is that some people learn fiscal responsibility, and others don't.

Then the key question is whether some courses on that can help increase the number of people who live fiscally responsible lives.

There's no way to know without trying. It may be a thing where it doesn't work and that type of ethic has to be instilled through parenting and kids are a lost cause by high school. Or it may be that it can at least work for some and help them avoid making bad financial decisions as young adults that can really wreck their credit it and make it hard to ever get on track.

In either case, at least some kids should get benefits about learning more about money, investing, how the stock market works etc. that will at least be useful to those that are responsible financially and invest when they get older etc.

So even if it doesn't succeed in bolstering fiscal responsibility, it should at least give useful knowledge to the kids already heading down the right path.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but how is this justifiable in schools today? It would be nice to help some people, and I whole heatedly agree that it could help those some people, but I put my foot down at the point where people start agitating that it should be a class. It makes no sense economically, Budgets are already strapped, and you want to tell schools that don't have big operating budgets to give a catchall class that is not based on getting kids to pass their exit exams and do well on state academic testing? That is not justifiable to me in today school system. I could see some of your points maybe being worked into a civics/economics class, but an entire class devoted to this one thing would just be silly and not be based in reality.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']Yes, you are spouting off bullshit... http://nonchexsystems.org/[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected on a technicality: you can get an account despite chexsystems.

I guarantee that every person that wants to open an account goes through chexsystems.

Because of....
[quote name='cindersphere']Umm.. BofA still uses it, I assume they are on the list because they have use that system and the system they developed that works exactly like chexsystem, which they made to reduce costs that is now used by. But umm yeah all the banks you listed there use either a combination of either chexsystems or early warning services (more colloquially known as EWS). But yeah, your list is the end all of that topic.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Yes, but how is this justifiable in schools today? It would be nice to help some people, and I whole heatedly agree that it could help those some people, but I put my foot down at the point where people start agitating that it should be a class. It makes no sense economically, Budgets are already strapped, and you want to tell schools that don't have big operating budgets to give a catchall class that is not based on getting kids to pass their exit exams and do well on state academic testing? That is not justifiable to me in today school system. I could see some of your points maybe being worked into a civics/economics class, but an entire class devoted to this one thing would just be silly and not be based in reality.[/QUOTE]
Also, classes like these would be more catered and directed towards more affluent school districts. Shitty schools are engineered to be shitty. Let's not forget that.
 
Damn, I just realized how poorly I wrote that post and now it was quoted so I will forever sound like an idiot. :(

[quote name='dohdough']Also, classes like these would be more catered and directed towards more affluent school districts. Shitty schools are engineered to be shitty. Let's not forget that.[/QUOTE]

True but a simple law change could put those classes as required. But that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, luckily my school actually had this class. Civics for one semester, econ the second.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Yes, but how is this justifiable in schools today? It would be nice to help some people, and I whole heatedly agree that it could help those some people, but I put my foot down at the point where people start agitating that it should be a class. It makes no sense economically, Budgets are already strapped, and you want to tell schools that don't have big operating budgets to give a catchall class that is not based on getting kids to pass their exit exams and do well on state academic testing? That is not justifiable to me in today school system. I could see some of your points maybe being worked into a civics/economics class, but an entire class devoted to this one thing would just be silly and not be based in reality.[/QUOTE]

I mean I had classes like "Travel WV" that was a whole semester about learning about basically tourist attractions in the state and going on field trips to do things like White Water Rafting.

I had to take one music and one art class, despite having no talent or interest in those things (those should be electives totally in high school rather than required courses). Not to mention Phys Ed. It's important to be required in elementary school and maybe middle school to instill the importance of exercise etc--especially in the face of the childhood obesity epidemic etc. But I'm not sure it needs to be required in high schools, and certainly not all 4 years like mine did.

Like I said, I wouldn't at any means do such a course in place of any core classes. But I'm pretty sure most every curriculum has some useless classes that a finance class could be worked into.

And I do agree it could be worked into a civics or economics courses. I didn't have either of those classes at my high school. Granted I graduated from high school in 1997, so maybe they have those courses now.

As for the state exams thing, I'm thoroughly opposed to standardized tests and teaching to those tests. I think they're a big reason why we get so many kids in college I have to deal with that have no business being there as they need so much remedial education in things like writing and math skills.
 
[quote name='Clak']Wouldn't this have basically been included in a home ec course?[/QUOTE]

Home ec was geared toward cooking, sewing, and whatnot. It's been severely cut as well and now we have a generation of adults that eat out, throw out gently used clothing, and have no idea how to do anything around the house.
 
Yeah, I had home ec in middle school (1 semester in 8th grade required). And it was just cooking, cleaning, sewing etc.

It was largely useless. I learned more cooking from my parents after that and just learning on my on, cleaning isn't rocket science, and who the hell sews anything anymore?
 
People still sew blankets, hats, and gloves. Handmade wool hats are extremely warm. I think it just feeds into our consumer culture. People are less likely to throw out things made by hand but it's easy to toss a pair of hanes socks with a small hole in them. I even have a buddy that looks at me weird when I pull out an old white t-shirt to check my oil. You'd think I was a hobo with a shotgun.
 
I suppose. I'm generally against the consumer culture thing, but not so much with clothing (excluding shit like over priced designer clothes etc.).

The idea of making your own clothes is kind of relic to the era of housewives etc. and doesn't have much place (beyond being a hobby) in the era of both spouses having to work etc. It's nearly as dated as the notion of people getting most of their food through hunting and growing their own fruits and vegetables IMO.

Certainly not something that should be part of any required courses in school IMO.
 
[quote name='depascal22']People still sew blankets, hats, and gloves. Handmade wool hats are extremely warm. I think it just feeds into our consumer culture. People are less likely to throw out things made by hand but it's easy to toss a pair of hanes socks with a small hole in them. I even have a buddy that looks at me weird when I pull out an old white t-shirt to check my oil. You'd think I was a hobo with a shotgun.[/QUOTE]

I learned to do that from my grandfather. God bless that old oakie.
 
[quote name='depascal22'] You'd think I was a hobo with a shotgun.[/QUOTE]
I saw what you did there.:D

And not everyone spends money to hem pants...or buy a lawn mower. ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Certainly not something that should be part of any required courses in school IMO.[/QUOTE]

I'd have to agree with you. Maybe it could be replaced with a more comprehensive driver's education that included basic maintenance.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'd have to agree with you. Maybe it could be replaced with a more comprehensive driver's education that included basic maintenance.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure they'd really need to expand the time of a driver's ed class to cover the needed basics like changing tires, wiper blades etc.

Maybe if they wanted to get into things like oil changes etc, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Hell, I know how to do that kind of stuff, (change oil, brake pads etc.) but haven't had the option to do it for years as the apartments and condos I've lived at have all had rules (with fines if caught) against doing car maintenance in the parking lots/garages.

For many that's becoming another bygone of past generations as well--but not near to the extent as sewing. In both spouse working households who has the time to screw with changing oil (trip to the store to buy oil and filter, finding time to do it, trip to store or wherever to recycle the old oil) vs. just spending half an hour or less at an oil change place?

Plus stuff like that is generally easy to find a friend or family member to show you if you end up wanting to learn on your own.
 
[quote name='depascal22']My apologies. Your exact statement was, "Why is that suddenly on someone else's shoulders to burden the responsibility just because the parents suck at parenting?"

This gives the impression that you want financial education but don't want to be responsible for it....[/QUOTE]
I would gladly pay higher taxes if I knew that financial education would be taught either in schools or to anyone who was open to the idea. I consider myself very well educated financially and I can tell you right now though that none of my knowledge came from school. It came largely from my parents as well as additional steps that I chose to take as I come up in the world.


[quote name='dmaul1114']1. Kids can't choose their parents, and it's thus not their fault if they get stuck with useless ones. Thus we have an obligation to do what we can within the school system to try and make up for that.

2. There's really no way to hold parents accountable for things like teaching proper life lessons etc. Legally they can only be held accountable for things like abuse and neglect. If they're feeding their kids, keeping them in school, and not abusing them, there's really nothing that can be done for them in not taking an interest in them beyond those basics.

So again the burden is always going to fall on society to pick up the slack for shitty parents, or deal with the consequences of how those kids will turn out of both their parents and society/school doesn't take an interest in them. It's in our interest to keep as many as possible from falling through the cracks of shitty parenting.[/QUOTE]

Kids can't choose their parents, just as parents can't choose their kids. You can teach a child all the "life lessons" in the world and they're still going to do things you wouldn't do. The same with finances. I completely agree with you that some of the burden does fall on society, but how much exactly? At what point does society say, "look, we have given you options. You can easily access information to make your own decisions. Either go forth and prosper or not." Many people, no matter the age, race or income CHOOSE to be financially ignorant, whether society is there for them or not.
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']
I completely agree with you that some of the burden does fall on society, but how much exactly? At what point does society say, "look, we have given you options. You can easily access information to make your own decisions. Either go forth and prosper or not." Many people, no matter the age, race or income CHOOSE to be financially ignorant, whether society is there for them or not.[/QUOTE]

Of course. And all I've suggested is covering finances more in school, be it in it's own class or part of economics/civics classes etc.

But unless this country moves way to the right, it's never going to be "go forth and prosper or not" as those who fail will end up on welfare, foodstamps etc.

So we have an incentive as tax payers to find ways to minimize the number of people who fail and end up on welfare.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So we have an incentive as tax payers to find ways to minimize the number of people who fail and end up on welfare.[/QUOTE]

And there's the catch 22. We want people off of welfare, but we don't want to pay for the services/education/etc... necessary for them to not be on welfare. So basically, it isn't that we don't want people on welfare, we just don't want welfare and fuck 'em.
 
Exactly. The conservative movement is at it's core a cold, heartless movement that wants a dog eat dog world where you either succeed on your own or die basically as they're not willing to pay for welfare or what it takes to minimize the number of people who need it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. The conservative movement is at it's core a cold, heartless movement that wants a dog eat dog world where you either succeed on your own or die basically as they're not willing to pay for welfare or what it takes to minimize the number of people who need it.[/QUOTE]

The question I have is... is it better to give handouts indefinitely to people and keep them at a poverty level with no intent of helping them to better themselves or to assist when needed, while also giving them the skills to have a better life?
 
This would be cool to see in a home economics class as well. It would allow students to plan their lives while learning tools which would teach them how to, such as what the OP mentioned. Also teach students the sequence in which phases of life ought to occur ideally. For example, gaining an education which leads to a career, which leads to financial stability, which provides a foundation for a family. Of course, there can be exceptions to this order.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']The question I have is... is it better to give handouts indefinitely to people and keep them at a poverty level with no intent of helping them to better themselves or to assist when needed, while also giving them the skills to have a better life?[/QUOTE]

The latter for sure. Nothing should be pure handouts beyond things like disability payments.

All welfare payments should be coupled with programming (with required participation) to help them acquire skills to better their lives IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The latter for sure. Nothing should be pure handouts beyond things like disability payments.

All welfare payments should be coupled with programming (with required participation) to help them acquire skills to better their lives IMO.[/QUOTE]


See that's just it... this is how the welfare system should work... but it doesn't...

I have no problem with a welfare system that is setup to help people better themselves... but the current one is broken.

Guess I'm just cold and heartless.
 
[quote name='Revolution']This would be cool to see in a home economics class as well. It would allow students to plan their lives while learning tools which would teach them how to, such as what the OP mentioned. Also teach students the sequence in which phases of life ought to occur ideally. For example, gaining an education which leads to a career, which leads to financial stability, which provides a foundation for a family. Of course, there can be exceptions to this order.[/QUOTE]
And who would implement that policy and regulate it? Something like the DoE like Ron Paul seeks to dismantle?:roll:
 
The welfare system should resemble something like the work crews in the New Deal. You're out of work and have no real skills? Guess who's filling pot holes. Oh, you have skills but still haven't found a job after a couple years? Minneapolis needs new bridges over the Mississippi. You'll be paid a fair wage and you and your family will have access to VA hospitals while you work but you better be getting that resume out. If you can't do manual labor, then you better believe you're out on the soccer field coaching kids or in the library teaching people how to read. Let's get something for our dollar.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The welfare system should resemble something like the work crews in the New Deal. You're out of work and have no real skills? Guess who's filling pot holes. Oh, you have skills but still haven't found a job after a couple years? Minneapolis needs new bridges over the Mississippi. You'll be paid a fair wage and you and your family will have access to VA hospitals while you work but you better be getting that resume out. If you can't do manual labor, then you better believe you're out on the soccer field coaching kids or in the library teaching people how to read. Let's get something for our dollar.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't that displace employed individuals? Isn't that just another way to cut wages?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Wouldn't that displace employed individuals? Isn't that just another way to cut wages?[/QUOTE]

To play devil's advocate (partly anyway).

To the first, no--not directly anyway. There are a gazillion pot holes around, they clearly don't have enough public maintenance workers to keep up with repair work. So using people on well fair to add to the work force would just help maintain infrastructure without placing current jobs in that example.

Things like coaching youths sports, teaching at the library etc. tends to be volunteer work. So it would just basically be forcing some people on welfare to volunteer.

But to the second, it could affect wages I suppose. And could indirectly displace workers overtime as new positions are created when more money is available as it's cheaper to just employ more temp workers on welfare.

In any case I'm not a huge supporter of the "force them to work idea." I'm more a fan of the force them to take GED classes if they're a dropout, force them to take job training classes if they have a diploma, maybe even community college for people with he ability etc. all while helping them find employment.

The goal should be to help them help themselves make a living and not need public support, not just put them to public works so we get cheap labor in exchange for welfare support.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But to the second, it could affect wages I suppose. And could indirectly displace workers overtime as new positions are created when more money is available as it's cheaper to just employ more temp workers on welfare.

In any case I'm not a huge supporter of the "force them to work idea." I'm more a fan of the force them to take GED classes if they're a dropout, force them to take job training classes if they have a diploma, maybe even community college for people with he ability etc. all while helping them find employment.

The goal should be to help them help themselves make a living and not need public support, not just put them to public works so we get cheap labor in exchange for welfare support.[/QUOTE]
Exactly this. The effects can already be seen in places that contract prison labor.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Isn't it presumptuous to assume the unemployed are not seeking work?[/QUOTE]

That's why I don't like the "let's put them to work for cheap" option.

The problem is most of them are on welfare because they have little education and no marketable skills.

If you want to get them off welfare and keep them off welfare you have to give them education (at least GED--ideally also access to community college) and/or job skills, certifications etc. so they are marketable and can get a job that pays a meaningful wage and keep it (which will also require dealing with any substance abuse issues and other personal problems).


If you're just talking unemployed and not just those on welfare--all the 8.8% currently unemployed are looking for work or they wouldn't be counted in the measure as it doesn't included people not actively looking for work (so it's an underestimate of the real number of unemployed individuals).
 
[quote name='dohdough']Exactly this. The effects can already be seen in places that contract prison labor.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Though I do think the system could be tweaked to minimize impact on jobs/wages and also help with re-entry. But the current systems is busted on both fronts.

Costs should be around the same as outside labor so as to no drive down the wage market in that area. And the prisoners should get paid a real wage (minimum wage or above) and not a tiny amount. And it should all go in a savings account set up for them that they can't access until they are released. That way they're not being tossed back to society penniless.

Finally there should be a system in place to find them a job doing that kind of work upon release.

Problem is the scale is too large since our prison population is so huge. There's no way to get everyone who could benefit from the program into a prison work system as there isn't that much demand for jobs. And with 600,000+ people being released from prison each year, there's no way to place them all in these types of jobs upon release as there aren't near that many positions open.


So again, while I can see some benefit in theory, it just doesn't work in the real world. Focus on giving them education, job training, dealing with personal issues, and provide the support they need to get back on their feet upon release by still helping them a lot upon release. Not making them work and "earn their keep."

People are so opposed to spending money on prisoners and ex-cons, providing community college classes to them (that law abiding citizens have to pay for etc.), which is stupid giving the social costs (higher chance of more crimes committed) and financial costs (them ending up in prison again) of the crazy high recidivism rates we have.
 
Free education for welfare recipients sounds great.. but convincing Republicans to pay for public education for children isn't even going well at the moment.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Free education for welfare recipients sounds great.. but convincing "conservatives" to pay for public education for children isn't even going well at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Hell, I'd even support extending public education to include 2 years of community college (or trade schools) for those who choose to pursue them.

We're already paying for K-12, what's 2 more years? Especially since the 2 more years would give more job skills and thus reduce odds of long-term unemployment. They'd also improve chances of people succeeding in a 4 year college for those who just aren't ready for it out of high school.

A lot of these things are cases where we can probably spend more in the short-term to save money in the long term by cutting welfare costs, cutting the number of people on medicaid etc. But good luck selling such ideas to conservatives who think everyone should make their own success regardless of unequal opportunities to do so.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Isn't it presumptuous to assume the unemployed are not seeking work?[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying you go to work right away. These programs would be reserved for people that are getting ready to come off unemployment benefits or have been on welfare for years.

You're given every opportunity to find gainful employment in your field and/or given re-education in a field that has multiple openings. If you still can't find a job, then you work for us.

It'll never happen because people will equate it to slave labor and regular employees will probably treat the "temps" like garbage. Either way, it's something different than letting someone collect food stamps and live in public housing forever. It will make John Q MBA seriously consider stopping by Lowe's on his way to the unemployment office in that ninth month.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm not saying you go to work right away. These programs would be reserved for people that are getting ready to come off unemployment benefits or have been on welfare for years.

You're given every opportunity to find gainful employment in your field and/or given re-education in a field that has multiple openings. If you still can't find a job, then you work for us.[/QUOTE]

But again, where do those positions come from? It's not like there's a bunch of low level public sector jobs out there sitting unfilled that those people could be put in.

Though I suppose they could be forced in to things that are volunteer service work now in order to keep getting their welfare checks.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But again, where do those positions come from? It's not like there's a bunch of low level public sector jobs out there sitting unfilled that those people could be put in.

Though I suppose they could be forced in to things that are volunteer service work now in order to keep getting their welfare checks.[/QUOTE]

Most volunteer positions go unfilled in medium to large cities. Our town struggles to put a soccer league together because of lack of coaches. People with degrees (and clean records) can be sent to schools to assist in whatever way possible. There are ways to be creative with this.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Most volunteer positions go unfilled in medium to large cities. Our town struggles to put a soccer league together because of lack of coaches. People with degrees (and clean records) can be sent to schools to assist in whatever way possible. There are ways to be creative with this.[/QUOTE]

That's true. It just seems hard to do in any grand scale.

What about rural areas where there are fewer schools and fewer volunteer positions etc.?

What about the people on welfare not qualified for positions--lack of education, criminal records etc? They can't do much other than manual labor, and beyond litter clean ups and other community service type stuff you're back to having to worry about displacing working poor from menial jobs and affecting wages.

What about the people who just refuse to work? Do we just take away their welfare and let them become homeless and make any offspring wards of the state? Lock them up?


I just don't see it working. There are always going to be some deadbeats on long-term welfare, even if we do all the education, job training etc. advocated for above by myself or others. In terms of social costs it's probably best for us to just grin and bear it and try to minimize the number of people who fall into that category.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I just don't see it working. There are always going to be some deadbeats on long-term welfare, even if we do all the education, job training etc. advocated for above by myself or others. In terms of social costs it's probably best for us to just grin and bear it and try to minimize the number of people who fall into that category.[/QUOTE]


The thing is... there are quite a few people where the welfare system is the family business. Generation after generation because they are happy being given a free roof over their heads and enough money to eat at mcdonalds every day.


[quote name='dmaul1114']What about the people on welfare not qualified for positions--lack of education, criminal records etc? They can't do much other than manual labor, and beyond litter clean ups and other community service type stuff you're back to having to worry about displacing working poor from menial jobs and affecting wages.[/QUOTE]

Most places I've been have little signs on the highways. XXXXX group has volunteered to pick up litter for xxxx miles. Something that doesn't require any skill and doesn't take away from existing jobs in most areas.
 
As someone that lived off of SSI for several years I can def vouch that you are off your freaking rocker saying it puts a free roof over peoples heads and gives them enough money to eat at McDonalds every day. That free housing can take years and years and years to get if you ever get it at all, even then its in horrid places that no one is "happy" to "live" in. Its a place to coast and subside not have any real life.

I received between $500 and $600 while I was on SSI. I received around $200 a month for food stamps. A basic apartment anywhere ran around $400 if I wanted to live in a neighborhood I would not get shot in. If you live in the bad neighborhood you might knock off $100-$150. That left me $200 a month with which to pay the rest of my bills...it aint much.

People always talk about the welfare system like everyone on it is living like a queen and it is just not the reality. Most people that live like that are either hustling the system somehow, living at home(like I did for most of it)or their making money on the side(which again is technically hustling the system). The welfare system does need reform and it is frequently abused.....but its not the dream "living"(and I use that word loosely)that conservatives paint it to be.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']As someone that lived off of SSI for several years I can def vouch that you are off your freaking rocker saying it puts a free roof over peoples heads and gives them enough money to eat at McDonalds every day. That free housing can take years and years and years to get if you ever get it at all, even then its in horrid places that no one is "happy" to "live" in. Its a place to coast and subside not have any real life.

I received between $500 and $600 while I was on SSI. I received around $200 a month for food stamps. A basic apartment anywhere ran around $400 if I wanted to live in a neighborhood I would not get shot in. If you live in the bad neighborhood you might knock off $100-$150. That left me $200 a month with which to pay the rest of my bills...it aint much.

People always talk about the welfare system like everyone on it is living like a queen and it is just not the reality. Most people that live like that are either hustling the system somehow, living at home(like I did for most of it)or their making money on the side(which again is technically hustling the system). The welfare system does need reform and it is frequently abused.....but its not the dream "living"(and I use that word loosely)that conservatives paint it to be.[/QUOTE]


I never used the term "living"... what I described, in my opinion, is existing... and there are a lot of people that are satisfied with that.

The fact is there are a lot of people that are happy not having anything because they don't have to do anything.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']I never used the term "living"... what I described, in my opinion, is existing... and there are a lot of people that are satisfied with that.

The fact is there are a lot of people that are happy not having anything because they don't have to do anything.[/QUOTE]

But I think you really think they WANT to be there when the truth is that its just all they know, all they think they can ever do or their scared to try for more. I know personally I can say that I fought with myself long and hard and I am still not 100% certain if I needed to be on the system or not, but what I do know is that I was terrified of doing more, no one had ever attempted to help me do more and when I tried it turned out so horribly.

I also think you are underestimating the number of people that are on the system but would like off. I went to a couple of classes at various organizations(both goverment run and private)that were supposed to help you become a functioning independent person and it was just depressing. First off most of the people there were there by choice, they really wanted to make a change in their life. However the system is set up to hold people back. The second you start making any money what so ever your assitance drops tremendously or all together based on what you make and it can be possible to get back on the system then. The people there were terrified of this, especially those that had experienced it. I mean your already on your own in life, you get some crappy job that does not pay you anymore(and sometimes less)like working at Mcdonalds...and then you get fired and your fucked if you held that job for any period of time. You say but cant you get another job? Not always, because again these are disabled people...not exactly the most desirable.

Second off though is the fact that those places do not really work with you, they open cases and then they close them. They do not care if you have become a functioning person or not, they just do the most basic of things then close your case and pass you on.

As I said I know there are a lot of people out there abusing the system and I know that there are a lot of people out there that "choose" to live that way. But there are just as many if not more that are just scared or do not know better and the system is designed to keep it that way.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']
Most places I've been have little signs on the highways. XXXXX group has volunteered to pick up litter for xxxx miles. Something that doesn't require any skill and doesn't take away from existing jobs in most areas.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, we discussed those kind of things above. And I agree that's a possibility.

I just don't doubt there are enough of those kind of year round, volunteer work positions (especially in impoverished rural areas) to be able to put all the unskilled people who are on welfare and don't obtain employment in those kind of positions.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus'] You say but cant you get another job? Not always, because again these are disabled people...not exactly the most desirable. [/QUOTE]

To be fair, I don't think most people have an issue with people who can't work because of disabilities being on permanent public assistance. Society is obligated to help people who truly can't help themselves.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, I don't think most people have an issue with people who can't work because of disabilities being on permanent public assistance. Society is obligated to help people who truly can't help themselves.[/QUOTE]

You know except that those are always the first programs cut. I bet your own college probably got rid of most of their disabled help programs if they had any.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']You know except that those are always the first programs cut. I bet your own college probably got rid of most of their disabled help programs if they had any.[/QUOTE]

Not that I'm aware. There are federal laws about access to education for the disabled, and I don't recall of any cuts to the disability services office over the time I've been here.

Only personnel cuts were low level staff (maintenance, janitors, administrated assistants etc.) for the most part. We didn't have a lot of cuts. Just some furlough days in 2009-2010 mainly (and pay freezes/no raises the past 2 years), coupled with increasing revenue through upping enrollment and increasing tuition and fees (which are still cheaper than surrounding states).
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']But I think you really think they WANT to be there when the truth is that its just all they know, all they think they can ever do or their scared to try for more. I know personally I can say that I fought with myself long and hard and I am still not 100% certain if I needed to be on the system or not, but what I do know is that I was terrified of doing more, no one had ever attempted to help me do more and when I tried it turned out so horribly.

I also think you are underestimating the number of people that are on the system but would like off. I went to a couple of classes at various organizations(both goverment run and private)that were supposed to help you become a functioning independent person and it was just depressing. First off most of the people there were there by choice, they really wanted to make a change in their life. However the system is set up to hold people back. The second you start making any money what so ever your assitance drops tremendously or all together based on what you make and it can be possible to get back on the system then. The people there were terrified of this, especially those that had experienced it. I mean your already on your own in life, you get some crappy job that does not pay you anymore(and sometimes less)like working at Mcdonalds...and then you get fired and your fucked if you held that job for any period of time. You say but cant you get another job? Not always, because again these are disabled people...not exactly the most desirable.

Second off though is the fact that those places do not really work with you, they open cases and then they close them. They do not care if you have become a functioning person or not, they just do the most basic of things then close your case and pass you on.

As I said I know there are a lot of people out there abusing the system and I know that there are a lot of people out there that "choose" to live that way. But there are just as many if not more that are just scared or do not know better and the system is designed to keep it that way.[/QUOTE]


I think you're reading a little too much into my comments... Because you even say 'I know that there are a lot of people out there that "choose" to live that way.'

That's what my comments have been about. I'm not bashing the existance of the system. I was just stating that there are quite a few people who choose to stay in the system. To me that's a flawed system.

I would love to see the system working the way it should and help people to get better.

I couldn't tell you how many people I've heard make the comment that they didn't want a raise... or didn't want to make a bonus because they would lose their Earned Income Credit. To me if a system is setup in a way that people don't want to do better, then it has major flaws.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not that I'm aware. There are federal laws about access to education for the disabled, and I don't recall of any cuts to the disability services office over the time I've been here.

Only personnel cuts were low level staff (maintenance, janitors, administrated assistants etc.) for the most part. We didn't have a lot of cuts. Just some furlough days in 2009-2010 mainly (and pay freezes/no raises the past 2 years), coupled with increasing revenue through upping enrollment and increasing tuition and fees (which are still cheaper than surrounding states).[/QUOTE]

You might be right about your school. I am just speaking from California's educational system. Colleges have slashed funding for disabled out here. However I would not be surprised if many other places are doing the same thing.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']I think you're reading a little too much into my comments... Because you even say 'I know that there are a lot of people out there that "choose" to live that way.'

That's what my comments have been about. I'm not bashing the existance of the system. I was just stating that there are quite a few people who choose to stay in the system. To me that's a flawed system.

I would love to see the system working the way it should and help people to get better.

I couldn't tell you how many people I've heard make the comment that they didn't want a raise... or didn't want to make a bonus because they would lose their Earned Income Credit. To me if a system is setup in a way that people don't want to do better, then it has major flaws.[/QUOTE]

My apologies for misunderstanding then.

Also to those saying there are not enough jobs to be done, I could not disagree more. I have always said we needed another FDR type movement. He created the federal park system to put people to work....why not do it again. Tear down old neighborhoods, build new parks, have people build gardens on top of existing buildings, clean up our existing parks and neighborhoods. There are so many jobs that could be created for that type of stuff. There are also millions of zany ideas that could do a lot of good if they had the man hours. For instance in Discover magazine(its a science mag)there was a scientist talking about how he had created and tested out an artifician ecosystem where they took old bottles and basically made little islands out of them. The lakes they dumped these in had their ecosystems flourish. Its such a simple and brilliant idea and so cheap to make...but its going no where because of the cost of man hours. Put people working on crap like that.

There are millions of creative ideas like that just begging to put people to work if they had the funding.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']You might be right about your school. I am just speaking from California's educational system. Colleges have slashed funding for disabled out here. However I would not be surprised if many other places are doing the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I can only speak to my school. Though of course CA's budget is worse than any other states so cuts out there have been more extreme than most other states across the board.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']
There are millions of creative ideas like that just begging to put people to work if they had the funding.[/QUOTE]

Funding is the key given that every state pretty much and the feds are hugely in debt.

Your ideas would cost millions on top of the welfare wages to buy the land, equipment etc. needed to do those kind of things, so implementing them in the current financial climate is near impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top