Anonymous wrote:If true, we need universal basic income and very robust social services so that people in jobs that do not pay a living wage have access to housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities of life. Otherwise we deal with all the externalities of having a large, desperate underclass -- crime, homelessness, substance abuse, civil unrest, etc.

Pick your poison.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.brookings.edu/articles/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

3 rules to avoid poverty:

1. Finish High School
2. Have a full-time job
3. Don't marry or have kids before age 21.

Just doing these three things gives you a 98% change of not living in poverty. Come on people.

I'm a teacher and followed all of those "rules." I have two degrees (BA and MA). My kids qualified for free preschool, free lunch, free before/aftercare, etc. We were considered low income for a long time (maybe we still are).

A full time public school teacher? With a full time employed spouse?

They somehow manage it in Western Europe.

Anonymous wrote:Through machinery and technology, there have been so many productivity gains in America over the last 60 years that there is enough profit to pay every worker $20/hour plus. Seriously, worker productivity has tripled in the last few decades, but basic wage has not even kept pace with inflation.
Where did all that extra money go? Right to the top- CEOs, Board or Directors and stockholders.
Productivity gain profits need to be allocated to every worker in the company, not just to the top. America is an extraordinarily rich country- it just doesn't share it with everyone.

+1

And I don’t know why some people think poor people should basically have to live on the street. It’s nicer for everyone when all people have decent living conditions.

Through machinery and technology, there have been so many productivity gains in America over the last 60 years that there is enough profit to pay every worker $20/hour plus. Seriously, worker productivity has tripled in the last few decades, but basic wage has not even kept pace with inflation.
Where did all that extra money go? Right to the top- CEOs, Board or Directors and stockholders.
Productivity gain profits need to be allocated to every worker in the company, not just to the top. America is an extraordinarily rich country- it just doesn't share it with everyone.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.brookings.edu/articles/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

3 rules to avoid poverty:

1. Finish High School
2. Have a full-time job
3. Don't marry or have kids before age 21.

Just doing these three things gives you a 98% change of not living in poverty. Come on people.

I'm a teacher and followed all of those "rules." I have two degrees (BA and MA). My kids qualified for free preschool, free lunch, free before/aftercare, etc. We were considered low income for a long time (maybe we still are).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Stop saying the schools are bad. They just have a contingent of kids whose parents make $15/hr. Does that make the school bad in your eyes?

The test scores are poor. That means that your kids are going to school with majority of peers who live in poverty and can’t meet academic state requirements.

So your solution is we should give free income to these families and then the kids will magically become worthy to attend school with your children?

I think we should pay their *working* parents a decent wage so they can afford to parent and be involved in their children’s lives. So these kids and their parents don’t have to worry about food or seeing the doctor and feel secure enough to focus on academics and meet academic standards. I think we should not base school assignment on property taxes and segregate the poor.

My kids go to a school with these same GS ratings and FARMS levels. The schools are fine. We don’t need to subsidize your snobbery. The school is fine and your privilege is showing. It’s quite obvious you wouldn’t send YOUR snowflake to school with the “poors.”

That’s right , because I was the poors once and I know exactly what the poor schools are like. Also, my “snobbery” is simply reality in Canada and just about every other developed country.

So move back there. We have a high income and no issue with our high achieving kids attending this school. You have personal baggage here that is clouding you.

It’s you who seems to be sensitive about your choices. The school can’t help a majority of its students meet basic educational standards. It’s objectively a poor school, has nothing to do with my baggage. Glad to hear that your kids are not affected.

UMC families pulling their kids from these schools will only make it worse. Right now the schools offer the full breadth of AP's, Honors, and DE options, and students are around other students who take academics seriously and are college bound. Its NOT a bad school. Great Schools is a farce.

DP: Depends--UMC families sometimes create a "school within a school" where hardly any of the low-income students get to experience those academic advantages and are rarely in the same social circle/classes. The UMC families then experience a boon in college admissions because it's easier to be the top 5% of your class. That kind of "help" isn't help.
FRMs kids who would be at the top of their class end up not being there because they are competing with kids whose parents are making enough to enroll in a lot of supplementary programs, hire tutors etc. It's a great deal for UMC families of course--their kids who would be top 1/4 elsewhere are top 1/20.
So you have to look at how many of the FRMs kids actually benefit. Some schools they really do, others they are worse off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Stop saying the schools are bad. They just have a contingent of kids whose parents make $15/hr. Does that make the school bad in your eyes?

The test scores are poor. That means that your kids are going to school with majority of peers who live in poverty and can’t meet academic state requirements.

So your solution is we should give free income to these families and then the kids will magically become worthy to attend school with your children?

I think we should pay their *working* parents a decent wage so they can afford to parent and be involved in their children’s lives. So these kids and their parents don’t have to worry about food or seeing the doctor and feel secure enough to focus on academics and meet academic standards. I think we should not base school assignment on property taxes and segregate the poor.

My kids go to a school with these same GS ratings and FARMS levels. The schools are fine. We don’t need to subsidize your snobbery. The school is fine and your privilege is showing. It’s quite obvious you wouldn’t send YOUR snowflake to school with the “poors.”

That’s right , because I was the poors once and I know exactly what the poor schools are like. Also, my “snobbery” is simply reality in Canada and just about every other developed country.

So move back there. We have a high income and no issue with our high achieving kids attending this school. You have personal baggage here that is clouding you.

It’s you who seems to be sensitive about your choices. The school can’t help a majority of its students meet basic educational standards. It’s objectively a poor school, has nothing to do with my baggage. Glad to hear that your kids are not affected.

UMC families pulling their kids from these schools will only make it worse. Right now the schools offer the full breadth of AP's, Honors, and DE options, and students are around other students who take academics seriously and are college bound. Its NOT a bad school. Great Schools is a farce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If true, we need universal basic income and very robust social services so that people in jobs that do not pay a living wage have access to housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities of life. Otherwise we deal with all the externalities of having a large, desperate underclass -- crime, homelessness, substance abuse, civil unrest, etc.

Pick your poison.

"Access to housing" does not mean no roommates and a bedroom for every child.

It is obvious that you have no idea how people living on $17 or $20 dollars an hour live. They take public transit with multiple change overs and long commute to get to work, some may have 1 crappy old car to get to work. They rent, very small apartments in dirty and unsafe neighborhoods, apartments that have not been repaired in decades (hello 1980's crappy stove). They can't afford enough food, can't afford to go to the dentist or doctor. They have no money in the bank to cover a small emergency.

Why should the UMC and wealthy live luxurious lives when so many live without dignity?

Nobody is stopping you from helping these people. Our poor people in the us do quite well compared to poor people in developing countries.But life isn't fair. Traveling will help you put things in perspective.

You sound so out of touch and I’m someone from a developing country with worse off poors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If true, we need universal basic income and very robust social services so that people in jobs that do not pay a living wage have access to housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities of life. Otherwise we deal with all the externalities of having a large, desperate underclass -- crime, homelessness, substance abuse, civil unrest, etc.

Pick your poison.

"Access to housing" does not mean no roommates and a bedroom for every child.

It is obvious that you have no idea how people living on $17 or $20 dollars an hour live. They take public transit with multiple change overs and long commute to get to work, some may have 1 crappy old car to get to work. They rent, very small apartments in dirty and unsafe neighborhoods, apartments that have not been repaired in decades (hello 1980's crappy stove). They can't afford enough food, can't afford to go to the dentist or doctor. They have no money in the bank to cover a small emergency.

Why should the UMC and wealthy live luxurious lives when so many live without dignity?

Nobody is stopping you from helping these people. Our poor people in the us do quite well compared to poor people in developing countries.But life isn't fair. Traveling will help you put things in perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Stop saying the schools are bad. They just have a contingent of kids whose parents make $15/hr. Does that make the school bad in your eyes?

The test scores are poor. That means that your kids are going to school with majority of peers who live in poverty and can’t meet academic state requirements.

So your solution is we should give free income to these families and then the kids will magically become worthy to attend school with your children?

I think we should pay their *working* parents a decent wage so they can afford to parent and be involved in their children’s lives. So these kids and their parents don’t have to worry about food or seeing the doctor and feel secure enough to focus on academics and meet academic standards. I think we should not base school assignment on property taxes and segregate the poor.

My kids go to a school with these same GS ratings and FARMS levels. The schools are fine. We don’t need to subsidize your snobbery. The school is fine and your privilege is showing. It’s quite obvious you wouldn’t send YOUR snowflake to school with the “poors.”

That’s right , because I was the poors once and I know exactly what the poor schools are like. Also, my “snobbery” is simply reality in Canada and just about every other developed country.

So move back there. We have a high income and no issue with our high achieving kids attending this school. You have personal baggage here that is clouding you.

It’s you who seems to be sensitive about your choices. The school can’t help a majority of its students meet basic educational standards. It’s objectively a poor school, has nothing to do with my baggage. Glad to hear that your kids are not affected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Stop saying the schools are bad. They just have a contingent of kids whose parents make $15/hr. Does that make the school bad in your eyes?

The test scores are poor. That means that your kids are going to school with majority of peers who live in poverty and can’t meet academic state requirements.

So your solution is we should give free income to these families and then the kids will magically become worthy to attend school with your children?

I think we should pay their *working* parents a decent wage so they can afford to parent and be involved in their children’s lives. So these kids and their parents don’t have to worry about food or seeing the doctor and feel secure enough to focus on academics and meet academic standards. I think we should not base school assignment on property taxes and segregate the poor.

My kids go to a school with these same GS ratings and FARMS levels. The schools are fine. We don’t need to subsidize your snobbery. The school is fine and your privilege is showing. It’s quite obvious you wouldn’t send YOUR snowflake to school with the “poors.”

That’s right , because I was the poors once and I know exactly what the poor schools are like. Also, my “snobbery” is simply reality in Canada and just about every other developed country.

So move back there. We have a high income and no issue with our high achieving kids attending this school. You have personal baggage here that is clouding you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Yeah we bought our first house when our combined HHI was about that, and $550k would have been more than we were comfortable with, even when interest rates were lower. But, we were pregnant with our first and childcare is expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Stop saying the schools are bad. They just have a contingent of kids whose parents make $15/hr. Does that make the school bad in your eyes?

The test scores are poor. That means that your kids are going to school with majority of peers who live in poverty and can’t meet academic state requirements.

So your solution is we should give free income to these families and then the kids will magically become worthy to attend school with your children?

I think we should pay their *working* parents a decent wage so they can afford to parent and be involved in their children’s lives. So these kids and their parents don’t have to worry about food or seeing the doctor and feel secure enough to focus on academics and meet academic standards. I think we should not base school assignment on property taxes and segregate the poor.

My kids go to a school with these same GS ratings and FARMS levels. The schools are fine. We don’t need to subsidize your snobbery. The school is fine and your privilege is showing. It’s quite obvious you wouldn’t send YOUR snowflake to school with the “poors.”

That’s right , because I was the poors once and I know exactly what the poor schools are like. Also, my “snobbery” is simply reality in Canada and just about every other developed country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn’t work. Do we really need another experimenting in it?

Yes. It sucks to be poor. There will be poor always.

You (DCUM in general) keep talking about the poor and people without any degrees or skills. But those are not the only people struggling. There is a whole class of invisible people to you guys. See the professor up thread. It's not just teen mom flipping burgers vs. UMC. Again--teachers, professors, scientists, healthcare workers, low-mid range IT workers. People **you** depend on to go about your life. Those people are struggling. And now with astronomical housing costs and inflation-having a house, sending your kids to a decent public school, health care, college-those things will be only affordable to the UMC. You might not care now-but as someone from a country with a huge wealth gap--it will impact you eventually. It already is in many places in the US (rising crime, etc).

I live in Loudoun. There are lots of these types, married to each other, living a nice life in a 3br townhouse or small SFH zoned to good schools. Its perfectly doable.

How much do those SFH and townhouses cost these days?

$550k
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/141-Hampshire-Sq-SW-Leesburg-VA-20175/12416313_zpid/

No clue how a family with HHI of $150K and kids affords this.

And the schools are not good.

So we are back to a "living wage" demanding a Great Schools 10?

NP. That's where I get hopelessly lost whenever anyone discusses living wage. When I see it discussed on social media, "living wage" seems to mean getting paid wages from day 1 at any job that enables you to buy an HGTV-level house or get an apartment by yourself (without roommates or a partner), raise kids if you have them, have a car, cell phone, sufficient food, streaming services, and other "necessities of life," regardless of the level of skill of the job, how long you have been there, your experience, or your education level.

$150K is not living wage, it's the middle class, a couple of a nurse and a teacher, both working. They have to pay 50% of their take home for this townhouse house with bad schools and have less than 4k a month to pay for everything else, from food, childcare, medical, retirement savings etc.

A couple making $15/hr can't even dream of this.

Stop saying the schools are bad. They just have a contingent of kids whose parents make $15/hr. Does that make the school bad in your eyes?

The test scores are poor. That means that your kids are going to school with majority of peers who live in poverty and can’t meet academic state requirements.

So your solution is we should give free income to these families and then the kids will magically become worthy to attend school with your children?

I think we should pay their *working* parents a decent wage so they can afford to parent and be involved in their children’s lives. So these kids and their parents don’t have to worry about food or seeing the doctor and feel secure enough to focus on academics and meet academic standards. I think we should not base school assignment on property taxes and segregate the poor.

My kids go to a school with these same GS ratings and FARMS levels. The schools are fine. We don’t need to subsidize your snobbery. The school is fine and your privilege is showing. It’s quite obvious you wouldn’t send YOUR snowflake to school with the “poors.”