RHEE-SULTS: A LITTLE RED MEAT FOR THOSE senti-MENTAL Rhee/Kaya supporters... ENJOY!! Fight Back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's say people move for two reasons -- because they have to or because they want to.

Some poor folks in DC might like living here because they have friends and family here and will only leave if they have to -- because rents go up and they can't afford to stay in the neighborhood.

Or some might want to move because they get a better job out of town or have other family they want to live near -- you know, just like non-poor people.

What kind of community of friends and family is it, when they don't help out?

Why stay when one could move out, find a good job and good living, and then have the luxury and money to come back to visit any time? Or better yet, come back and help your friends and family find a way out as well? Why is it we end up with so many immigrants from south of the border? Its because they figured out that they could come to America, escape the poverty in Mexico, Guatemala, et cetera and have a better quality of life - and also form a mechanism by which they can also help their friends and family also escape that poverty. Yet Americans can't seem to figure that out as well.

Difference is in a lack of motivation, poor Americans don't want escape from poverty and success in America anywhere nearly as much as others do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poor get plenty of uplift and plenty of opportunity in this city - far more than most other places - but not enough of the poor do their own part and seize opportunity - instead, many rely on the handouts as a core part of their regular living rather than as what is supposed to be a temporary boost to give them a hand and lift them out of poverty.

Yeah, you tell that to a teenager who can't read properly who happens to be lucky that I'm paying my own money for a reading tutor to teach her how to read. She has no clue what is ahead of her if she can't get this skill down but she's basically a good kid who goes to school every day and does her homework and gets passed along from year to year. There are thousands of kids like her in the system coming out into a job market that no longer has decent-paying manufacturing jobs for people with limited education. It's easy to dismiss them as not doing enough to seize opportunity but even the kids who are trying to "seize opportunity" are suffering from deficits that started way back when they were toddlers. If you want the city to function properly there needs to be more friggin' opportunity to seize.

There are tons of opportunities to be had in Washington DC. Fortunes being made here every day. BUT, people have to do their part. If nobody's even putting in the effort to learn even the most basic foundational skills like reading and basic math, they will go nowhere. Won't have much luck getting a job if you can't even fill out a job application. But many of these kids have cultivated the "school is wack" attitude, they don't understand how much they HOLD THEMSELVES BACK with those screwed up values and attitudes. Likewise, other things like habitual tardiness or skipping altogether? With habits like that, even if you do get a job, you won't keep it long because your boss will fire you and hire someone more reliable. This is fundamental stuff, folks. And the worst part of it is that it's deeply culturally ingrained. Yet nobody really wants to address it.

Wow. I tell you about a kid who hasn't learned to read properly and you decide it's because she blew off school and didn't try. How very wrong you are. In fact, I said nothing of the kind so your reading comprehension is flawed. I've known this kid for 10 years and I know that it's the school system that's failed her but, go on, keep telling yourself that she deliberately rejected all these fabulous educational benefits that were showered on her. You can sleep at night thinking that but it will still be a lie.

[Anonymous]

PP, it's a combination of things. Schools that totally suck, and students without motivation and who place little value on education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say people move for two reasons -- because they have to or because they want to.

Some poor folks in DC might like living here because they have friends and family here and will only leave if they have to -- because rents go up and they can't afford to stay in the neighborhood.

Or some might want to move because they get a better job out of town or have other family they want to live near -- you know, just like non-poor people.

What kind of community of friends and family is it, when they don't help out?

Why stay when one could move out, find a good job and good living, and then have the luxury and money to come back to visit any time? Or better yet, come back and help your friends and family find a way out as well? Why is it we end up with so many immigrants from south of the border? Its because they figured out that they could come to America, escape the poverty in Mexico, Guatemala, et cetera and have a better quality of life - and also form a mechanism by which they can also help their friends and family also escape that poverty. Yet Americans can't seem to figure that out as well.

Difference is in a lack of motivation, poor Americans don't want escape from poverty and success in America anywhere nearly as much as others do.

Who are you to say that they don't help out -- they may watch the kids while mom is working or take the kids in when Mom goes to jail. Help comes in different ways, depending on your station in life.

Sorry, but you seem very eager to ship poor people out of DC. Maybe they don't want a better job that allows them to come back and visit -- maybe they prefer to live here. Ok with you? Lots of non-poor people turn down or don't seek higher paying jobs so they can stay near family, or leave a good job to take one that pays less so they can move closer to family.

Face it -- you just want to get them out of town, so are finding all kinds of reasons why they should leave, if only they were as industrious as you think they should be

[Anonymous]

22:30, there's lots of places I'd *prefer* to live, but I end up living where I can afford to live. And that includes not being able to afford living near where some of my family live. And, the rest of us *have* to be industrious in order to afford the places that we do live in, we do not have luxury of living in someplace we would not otherwise be able to afford. Why should anyone be given a pass just because they don't want to be industrious enough to afford living where they want to? Your argument is a complete crock, in my humble opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say people move for two reasons -- because they have to or because they want to.

Some poor folks in DC might like living here because they have friends and family here and will only leave if they have to -- because rents go up and they can't afford to stay in the neighborhood.

Or some might want to move because they get a better job out of town or have other family they want to live near -- you know, just like non-poor people.

What kind of community of friends and family is it, when they don't help out?

Why stay when one could move out, find a good job and good living, and then have the luxury and money to come back to visit any time? Or better yet, come back and help your friends and family find a way out as well? Why is it we end up with so many immigrants from south of the border? Its because they figured out that they could come to America, escape the poverty in Mexico, Guatemala, et cetera and have a better quality of life - and also form a mechanism by which they can also help their friends and family also escape that poverty. Yet Americans can't seem to figure that out as well.

Difference is in a lack of motivation, poor Americans don't want escape from poverty and success in America anywhere nearly as much as others do.

Who are you to say that they don't help out -- they may watch the kids while mom is working or take the kids in when Mom goes to jail. Help comes in different ways, depending on your station in life.

Sorry, but you seem very eager to ship poor people out of DC. Maybe they don't want a better job that allows them to come back and visit -- maybe they prefer to live here. Ok with you? Lots of non-poor people turn down or don't seek higher paying jobs so they can stay near family, or leave a good job to take one that pays less so they can move closer to family.

Face it -- you just want to get them out of town, so are finding all kinds of reasons why they should leave, if only they were as industrious as you think they should be

You're arguing with two different people. Also, you've completely sidestepped my observation that a) gentrification involves very little displacement--in fact there may be a negative correlation. The "shrinking" number of poor in DC is actually a function of population growth and the fact that there are now options for the poor other than "penned up in a ghetto".

I might ask you why you seem so heavily invested in inflating the percentage of poor people in DC. As middle class population growth continues, obviously the poor will fall as a total share of population. You seem to be mistaking this for displacement.

What's the answer? Write laws to import three homeless people from Baltimore for every middle class couple who decide to move into DC?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, "b) The 'shrinking' number..."

[Anonymous]

I'm not for 'inflating' the number of poor people in dc. i'm against making up reasons for why they'd be better off if they left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not for 'inflating' the number of poor people in dc. i'm against making up reasons for why they'd be better off if they left.

But some are better off leaving. And most make that decision themselves. Being "displaced" due to gentrification is incredibly rare. It's more likely that gentrification allows people to stay--and have better economic outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say people move for two reasons -- because they have to or because they want to.

Some poor folks in DC might like living here because they have friends and family here and will only leave if they have to -- because rents go up and they can't afford to stay in the neighborhood.

Or some might want to move because they get a better job out of town or have other family they want to live near -- you know, just like non-poor people.

What kind of community of friends and family is it, when they don't help out?

Why stay when one could move out, find a good job and good living, and then have the luxury and money to come back to visit any time? Or better yet, come back and help your friends and family find a way out as well? Why is it we end up with so many immigrants from south of the border? Its because they figured out that they could come to America, escape the poverty in Mexico, Guatemala, et cetera and have a better quality of life - and also form a mechanism by which they can also help their friends and family also escape that poverty. Yet Americans can't seem to figure that out as well.

Difference is in a lack of motivation, poor Americans don't want escape from poverty and success in America anywhere nearly as much as others do.

Who are you to say that they don't help out -- they may watch the kids while mom is working or take the kids in when Mom goes to jail. Help comes in different ways, depending on your station in life.

Sorry, but you seem very eager to ship poor people out of DC. Maybe they don't want a better job that allows them to come back and visit -- maybe they prefer to live here. Ok with you? Lots of non-poor people turn down or don't seek higher paying jobs so they can stay near family, or leave a good job to take one that pays less so they can move closer to family.

Face it -- you just want to get them out of town, so are finding all kinds of reasons why they should leave, if only they were as industrious as you think they should be

Yes, non-poor people turn down higher paying jobs for a whole host of reasons, BUT THEY WORK, PAY THEIR TAXES AND CARRY THEIR OWN WEIGHT. Frankly, it's downright OFFENSIVE if someone who otherwise should be perfectly capable of working and affording to pay their own pay is instead relying on the rest of us to subsidize their choices and lifestyle while the rest of us then have to work even harder and pay even more in taxes just because they "don't want to".

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, non-poor people turn down higher paying jobs for a whole host of reasons, BUT THEY WORK, PAY THEIR TAXES AND CARRY THEIR OWN WEIGHT. Frankly, it's downright OFFENSIVE if someone who otherwise should be perfectly capable of working and affording to pay their own pay is instead relying on the rest of us to subsidize their choices and lifestyle while the rest of us then have to work even harder and pay even more in taxes just because they "don't want to".

It is interesting that you equate "poor" with "not working". In fact, two relatively large groups of the poor are the working poor -- those who work but whose salaries are not sufficient to cover the cost of living -- and the elderly, who in many if not most cases, worked at one time.

DC has a significant number of members of a third group -- ex-offenders, who have a very difficult time finding a job. These individuals are willing and able to work, but can't get a job once they check the box on an application asking if they've ever had a criminal conviction.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now we can talk honestly about substantially increasing the "carrot" to offset those market pressures. What would that look like? I'm not talking about some airy construct like "improve the schools". I'm talking about tangible actions--with costs. And what if we improved the schools and the population of the very poor still fell against the city population as a whole? After all, the city population is growing steadily, which means the denominator is growing. Should we increase social spending in order to bump those numbers back up? After all, you've already conceded that decreasing services and raising the cost of living will make "other jurisdictions become more attractive". Should we bump up our social spending to better retain our poor residents and better attract poor people from MD and VA and elsewhere in order to keep DC's current socioeconomic profile static?

Since the topic of "improving the schools' requires a lot more discussion than I am prepared to do in this medium, you are going to have to live with "improving the schools" as an idea for improving the lives of poor people. The city didn't just magically become more attractive to affluent folks. It became that way because the government actively pursued policies to increase the attractiveness of the city to that demographic. When rising costs associated with those improvements negatively impacted less affluent residents, it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that there was a backlash. Neither should it be a surprise when cynical politicians harness the resentment associated with that backlash for their own benefit. Embracing a policy of reducing poverty through the encouragement of the poor to leave the city will only increase that backlash and strengthen those politicians.

Just as the government pursued policies to attract affluent residents, it should adopt policies that allow the less advantaged to benefit from the city's growth. In the area of education, high-quality pre-k has become a fought-over privilege of the well-to-do. But, that is the type of program that is nearly priceless to a poor single mother who would like to be able to have a job. High-quality daycare and early education should be programs that progressives support just as strongly as bike lanes. Similarly, improved access to healthcare is another area that can benefit the poor. If collocating those services with schools makes sense, than it should be tried. As another poster has illustrated, job training is an important service that can also be combined with schools. During the campaign, Paul Zukerberg made a legitimate argument that far too many lives are ruined because of a pot bust. Maybe the city should look at decriminalization or simply stop enforcing the marijuana laws. The city could incentivize making healthier foods available at affordable prices. There are a number of things that could be done.

But, an important change is a change in perception. The poor shouldn't be perceived as a problem. Rather, the challenges faced by the poor such as unemployment, poor health, poor education, crime, etc. are the problems. And, those are not just the problems of the poor. Because, as long as such problems exist, there will be resentment and that resentment is oxygen for those politicians who will cynically exploit it. Hence those are problems for anyone who rejects such politicians. We need to deprive those politicians of their oxygen.

Finally, I am painting with a very broad brush here. A lot of what I think we should be doing pertains not only to the poor, but simply the lower middle class. But, I'm trying not to write an encyclopedia.

What Jeff said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, it's a combination of things. Schools that totally suck, and students without motivation and who place little value on education.

But not this kid and not a bunch of kids like her. If you are going to dismiss her, you better have the gonads to do it honestly and not try to lump her in with some other group of people you don't like. Cowardly argument, pp, cowardly.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, non-poor people turn down higher paying jobs for a whole host of reasons, BUT THEY WORK, PAY THEIR TAXES AND CARRY THEIR OWN WEIGHT. Frankly, it's downright OFFENSIVE if someone who otherwise should be perfectly capable of working and affording to pay their own pay is instead relying on the rest of us to subsidize their choices and lifestyle while the rest of us then have to work even harder and pay even more in taxes just because they "don't want to".

It is interesting that you equate "poor" with "not working". In fact, two relatively large groups of the poor are the working poor -- those who work but whose salaries are not sufficient to cover the cost of living -- and the elderly, who in many if not most cases, worked at one time.

DC has a significant number of members of a third group -- ex-offenders, who have a very difficult time finding a job. These individuals are willing and able to work, but can't get a job once they check the box on an application asking if they've ever had a criminal conviction.

Don't forget, there's another group: those who are simply incapable of working, either because of physical or psychological limitations.

[Anonymous]

Jsteel wrote:

"The city didn't just magically become more attractive to affluent folks. It became that way because the government actively pursued policies to increase the attractiveness of the city to that demographic."

Examples please.