Are you a "Dream Hoarder"? I am, apparently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

The playing field is level with respect to the law. That's all there is and that's all there should be. Life is not a perfect balance of equality. I wasn't born with a physique for sports, nor am I as intelligent as many of the people I've met.

In the end we are arguing on a scale as always from Darwinisim/Capitalisim on the one hand to Socialisim/Total Redistribution on the other hand. I think we can all agree neither extreme is useful but the US on the capitalisim side has generally done better than communisim, socialist regimes on the other side. Even Europe the most successful socialist model is only successful due to a very homogenuous population and when diversity does occur the system begins to collapse. Maybe look to Canada with a more socialist model but their economy gets crushed by the capitalist US. Bottom line the capitalist system has been working fine for years in the US. There is no need to move towards socialisim. There will always be different classes in the US which is a good thing and a requirement for a functioning society

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In the end we are arguing on a scale as always from Darwinisim/Capitalisim on the one hand to Socialisim/Total Redistribution on the other hand. I think we can all agree neither extreme is useful but the US on the capitalisim side has generally done better than communisim, socialist regimes on the other side. Even Europe the most successful socialist model is only successful due to a very homogenuous population and when diversity does occur the system begins to collapse. Maybe look to Canada with a more socialist model but their economy gets crushed by the capitalist US. Bottom line the capitalist system has been working fine for years in the US. There is no need to move towards socialisim. There will always be different classes in the US which is a good thing and a requirement for a functioning society

I largely agree. It's prudent to qualify the existence of different classes being a good thing in so far as it is a reflection of the natural difference in competitiveness between people, and not one class artificially holding another class down as in a caste system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

The playing field is level with respect to the law. That's all there is and that's all there should be. Life is not a perfect balance of equality. I wasn't born with a physique for sports, nor am I as intelligent as many of the people I've met.

There's a pretty big difference between all abilities not being equal and all opportunities not being equal. I work in a field with a lot of "must hires" that are back-scratching favors for peers, and those opportunities may be advertised to people on the street doesn't mean those people have a shot at them, despite being equally or better qualified. Mine's not unique either.

The idea that because laws prohibit discrimination we're all good is really naive. It takes time and money to bring a lawsuit, proof of discrimination rarely shows up in blatantly racist/sexist/whatever emails that can be printed out and handed to the jury (or in an HR file that says, "We declined to hire due to race."), and people still have to pay rent in the interim. It's fine if you don't think anything further should be done to combat this, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the playing field is level because there are anti-discrimination laws. Anyone who think that filing lawsuits are a quick and easy way to solve your problems has never been involved in a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

I was the LOL poster laughing at the poster saying everything is level .

And I was agreeing with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

If you go to the education forum you will find posters willing to sacrifice the quality of their child's education in the name of diversity

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

Maybe "quality" doesn't have a one size fits all definition. Why are people so defensive about not prioritizing diversity in schools? It's bizarre. Send your kid to a majority-white school, I don't care. You shouldn't care if I do think diversity is an advantage.

How so ironic! Listen to yourself, when offered a different opinion, you are simply dismissing it and chastise the other PP for even expressing a different idea. This perfectly illustrates the point that the PP was making, that your idea of diversity based on skin color is shallow and therefore has no advantage; and that your preference for superficial diversity comes at the expense of true diversity, which is a diversity of ideals.

What? The PP said nothing about ethnic diversity vs. diversity of ideals. They said "there's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education." Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

The playing field is level with respect to the law. That's all there is and that's all there should be. Life is not a perfect balance of equality. I wasn't born with a physique for sports, nor am I as intelligent as many of the people I've met.

If you believe the law is applied fairly in all cases -- which I don't.

[Anonymous]

I would posit that the destruction of the nuclear family unit at lower income brackets (and more common among certain ethnicities) is more at the root of the problem than dream hoarding or unequal application of the law. This seems to be a growing and self-perpetuating problem since like begets like. The only fix I can see is a return to more traditional values like the importance of getting (and finishing) an education, successfully landing and sticking with a full time job, getting married before having children, etc. There are statistics all over the place correlating deviation from these values with a lifetime of poverty and unfulfilled dreams. What I do for my own kids has little to do with it, but the fact that I am present with DH in the home working with our kids on their schoolwork and fostering an environment that focuses on the importance of education, hard work, service to the community and financial responsibility probably has a lot more to do with how they will turn out than whether or not I fought a multifamily housing development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

The playing field is level with respect to the law. That's all there is and that's all there should be. Life is not a perfect balance of equality. I wasn't born with a physique for sports, nor am I as intelligent as many of the people I've met.

There's a pretty big difference between all abilities not being equal and all opportunities not being equal. I work in a field with a lot of "must hires" that are back-scratching favors for peers, and those opportunities may be advertised to people on the street doesn't mean those people have a shot at them, despite being equally or better qualified. Mine's not unique either.

The idea that because laws prohibit discrimination we're all good is really naive. It takes time and money to bring a lawsuit, proof of discrimination rarely shows up in blatantly racist/sexist/whatever emails that can be printed out and handed to the jury (or in an HR file that says, "We declined to hire due to race."), and people still have to pay rent in the interim. It's fine if you don't think anything further should be done to combat this, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the playing field is level because there are anti-discrimination laws. Anyone who think that filing lawsuits are a quick and easy way to solve your problems has never been involved in a lawsuit.

"Equal opportunity" has a very specific meaning under laws that use this phrase. Equal opportunity as a general state of human society does not exist and cannot exist. A guy living in California does not have equal opportunity to enjoy a free open air concert hosted in Washington DC. For this reason, we generally break down "equal opportunity" to "equality of rights", and "equality of outcome", and state that equal opportunity implemented as equality of rights is the extent to which you can make a society equal. Equality of outcome has never worked and will never work outside of very small insular experiments.

Your must-hire example is a good example. Unless your employer has infringed on someone's right, then the equality of rights has been maintained however inefficient that hiring practice is.

Laws prohibiting discrimination is the extent to which civil society can morally enforce equality. Anything beyond that, then the state of equality that can exist is when everyone is suffering as much as the person who is doing the worst, because there is no impetus for someone to do better when all you'll do is take his accomplishments and make others more equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I have donated to my alma mater when my child was a senior in high school. Yes, I have gotten my children summer jobs through my connections. How differentiated are 20 year olds in skill sets anyway?

No problem with multifamily housing in the neighborhood, other than traffic congestion.

I'd have a problem with multifamily housing in my neighborhood if it affected my quality of life and the value of my house. I mean, if I wanted to live near multifamily residences, I would have bought there to begin with.

So do you think this book is a bit demonizing?

Is it possible that it SHOULD be demonizing. The growing wealth gap in the United States isn't just bad for poor kids. It's bad for the country. We literally cannot continue on this path and expect to have a functioning economy or democracy. So, yeah, perhaps it is demonizing, but perhaps it is time that UMC folks start working toward the common good rather than just the good of their own progeny.

I worked my ass off to make it into the UMC, and I'd like to see the wealthy who can afford to come down a few rungs on the ladder without taking a major hit to their lifestyle go first. It's not that hard a tumble back down the ladder from UMC, and a lot of us aren't here because of generational wealth or some other sort of safety net that prevents socioeconomic class slippage. We are fortunate to be able to make a lot of positive contributions through donations and volunteering, but expecting me to disadvantage my kid deliberately? Nope. I came from the working middle class, and I'm not going back.

I hate people like you. You happily climb ladder rungs while hoping others above you fall down.

I don't think PP is talking about ppl who earn income falling down- our tax structure is such that UMC ppl- people who make gigantic amounts of income are taxed disproportionately, if they earned the 500k as capital they'd pay less in taxes so a person who passively earns 1M in capital and sails all day actually ends up paying less in $ terms, not even percentage wise than some one who is working 70 hours a week and making 380k salary. Its the tax system which is geared towards punishing those with income at all levels b/c they aren't job creators and cushioning those with investment income. If you go down to annapolis etc. . you'll see plenty of ppl who are able to, for whatever reason, sit around b/c they are living off a modest investment income. If they earned the same amount in earned income, their net income after tax would be less and there are many ppl living like that all up and down the coasts and that is not even addressing the insane amount of wealth protection that the .01 percent get. Professionals in this country get shafted b/c of the concept that those who earn their money through a salary should pay taxes and support the nation b/c they don't do anything otherwise and that those who invest are creating jobs and growing the economy and are the saviors of the nation. Im not talking out of my a$$- I've a degree in social science, concentrating on social inequalities. This system also feeds into racial inequality b/c someone white is more likely to be left a small trust fund which is taxed lightly than say an asian person or black person who takes on loans to buy an education and then earn income. even if the gross amount is the same, due to the taxation system, the trust funder will have more net income and the worker will have less. especially in DC, the children of UMC white and African American's tend to have small trust funds that are taxed differently than the bonus that their peer who works his a$$ off and got here on scholarship earns, leaving the scholarship kid who works longer hours with less net income even though the gross was the same.

LMAO. Isn't that the veritable definition of "talking our of my a$$"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

If you go to the education forum you will find posters willing to sacrifice the quality of their child's education in the name of diversity

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

Maybe "quality" doesn't have a one size fits all definition. Why are people so defensive about not prioritizing diversity in schools? It's bizarre. Send your kid to a majority-white school, I don't care. You shouldn't care if I do think diversity is an advantage.

How so ironic! Listen to yourself, when offered a different opinion, you are simply dismissing it and chastise the other PP for even expressing a different idea. This perfectly illustrates the point that the PP was making, that your idea of diversity based on skin color is shallow and therefore has no advantage; and that your preference for superficial diversity comes at the expense of true diversity, which is a diversity of ideals.

What? The PP said nothing about ethnic diversity vs. diversity of ideals. They said "there's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education." Period.

Because "diversity" was in quotes, which is a plain reference to diversity of skin color. Reading comprehension is a necessary life skill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would posit that the destruction of the nuclear family unit at lower income brackets (and more common among certain ethnicities) is more at the root of the problem than dream hoarding or unequal application of the law. This seems to be a growing and self-perpetuating problem since like begets like. The only fix I can see is a return to more traditional values like the importance of getting (and finishing) an education, successfully landing and sticking with a full time job, getting married before having children, etc. There are statistics all over the place correlating deviation from these values with a lifetime of poverty and unfulfilled dreams. What I do for my own kids has little to do with it, but the fact that I am present with DH in the home working with our kids on their schoolwork and fostering an environment that focuses on the importance of education, hard work, service to the community and financial responsibility probably has a lot more to do with how they will turn out than whether or not I fought a multifamily housing development.

How much room do you have in your time-machine to get everyone back to the 50s/60s? Where is this plethora of affordable education and full-time jobs that everyone with traditional values can go take advantage of -- oh, wait, higher education costs are skyrocketing, jobs are being outsourced, and the "gig" economy is on the rise - awesome for employers because they don't have to provide benefits or be liable for you! Or people, including two-parent households, who have to work multiple jobs that prevent them from being present in the home if they want to stay in the home. As for your "nuclear family unit" idea - why don't you do some research on the effects of mass-incarceration and the war on drugs where large segments of the population - primarily minority and/or lower socio-economic status - were sacrificed to build up the profits of the prison industry. Start with Inequality for All, Thirteenth and maybe go retro with Harlan County USA .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

If you go to the education forum you will find posters willing to sacrifice the quality of their child's education in the name of diversity

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

Maybe "quality" doesn't have a one size fits all definition. Why are people so defensive about not prioritizing diversity in schools? It's bizarre. Send your kid to a majority-white school, I don't care. You shouldn't care if I do think diversity is an advantage.

How so ironic! Listen to yourself, when offered a different opinion, you are simply dismissing it and chastise the other PP for even expressing a different idea. This perfectly illustrates the point that the PP was making, that your idea of diversity based on skin color is shallow and therefore has no advantage; and that your preference for superficial diversity comes at the expense of true diversity, which is a diversity of ideals.

What? The PP said nothing about ethnic diversity vs. diversity of ideals. They said "there's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education." Period.

Because "diversity" was in quotes, which is a plain reference to diversity of skin color. Reading comprehension is a necessary life skill.

Why do people even bother responding to this poster. If you say "A" they will swear you say "B" and come up with some b********* definition and make some ridiculous straw man argument. Just let them have their point, ignore the idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

If you go to the education forum you will find posters willing to sacrifice the quality of their child's education in the name of diversity

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

Maybe "quality" doesn't have a one size fits all definition. Why are people so defensive about not prioritizing diversity in schools? It's bizarre. Send your kid to a majority-white school, I don't care. You shouldn't care if I do think diversity is an advantage.

How so ironic! Listen to yourself, when offered a different opinion, you are simply dismissing it and chastise the other PP for even expressing a different idea. This perfectly illustrates the point that the PP was making, that your idea of diversity based on skin color is shallow and therefore has no advantage; and that your preference for superficial diversity comes at the expense of true diversity, which is a diversity of ideals.

What? The PP said nothing about ethnic diversity vs. diversity of ideals. They said "there's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education." Period.

Because "diversity" was in quotes, which is a plain reference to diversity of skin color. Reading comprehension is a necessary life skill.

And I'm saying it wasn't a plain reference to diversity of skin color. Are you simply dismissing my different opinion and insulting me for expressing a different idea? How so ironic!

[Anonymous]

12:58 You're right, and I wish I'd read your post before replying. Thank you for the sanity check!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:58 You're right, and I wish I'd read your post before replying. Thank you for the sanity check!

+1