|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Whatever other underlying problems exist, a high school education is still a good way for the masses to escape the underclass. The chance of achieving this is higher if the child is raised by two parents. Santorum is right on this. Still don't really care for him though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UknowsI wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Of those who meet the 3 requirements set out by the Brookings Institution, only 2% live in poverty. You're right, Santorum unjustifiably moves from 2% to 0%, and should mention the 3rd requirement.
The rest of your post is just nitpicking. |
If Santorum wants to argue that graduating from high school and getting married before having children are good things that would reduce the probability of poverty, OK. But that's not what he said. He is simply wrong. The Brookings study simply does not support what he claims. Their 3 conditions are far more stringent than Santorum's. Under Santorum's much looser conditions, I suspect the probability of poverty would be nowhere near the 2% of the Brookings study. There is no study that I am aware of that would support his contention. I dispute his having his facts straight. He is wrong. |
I agree with jaykimf. In addition to what has already been pointed out, the biggest flaw is the age old fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. If a person drops out of high school, it is often because of an underlying problem which may be completely unrelated to high school. Making them finish high school will not always remove the underlying problem which might cause poverty more than lack of education in itself.
Of course politicians have a slightly different view of true and false, but from a scientific view point, it is very clear that he lacks backup for his statements in addition to the fact that it's completely implausible. South Korea should fit his ideal pretty well, since it has the highest rate of high school graduations and it also seems to me that most people get married before they have children. |
From a scientific viewpoint he lacks backup? He cited a nonpartisan poverty study. And these are the numbers where you claim correlation, not causation.
| Quote: |
| In fact, "young adults who did all three had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class." |
You have to be partisan to deny the overwhelming correlation here. Doing all three things decreases your chance of winding up in poverty by a factor of 38 as opposed to doing none of those three things. A factor of 38! Where else in the social sciences can you find such powerful correlation?!?
I'll tell you, all you have to do to get people to deny a clear reality in America is to stick a D or an R next to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In fact, "young adults who did all three had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class." |
You have to be partisan to deny the overwhelming correlation here. Doing all three things decreases your chance of winding up in poverty by a factor of 38 as opposed to doing none of those three things. A factor of 38! Where else in the social sciences can you find such powerful correlation?!?
I'll tell you, all you have to do to get people to deny a clear reality in America is to stick a D or an R next to it. |
I don't deny the correlation with the 3 factors cited in the study. I do deny that the 2% correlation is valid for the two factors that Santorum cites. Actually only one of the factors that Santorum cites matches the factors cited in the study. I assert that those getting married before having children while under the age of 21 are much more likely to end up in poverty than those waiting until age 21 or later, which is the condition specified in the study. I really don't know what the correlation would be with the 2 factors Santorum cites, but it certainly would be quite different from the study's correlation and probably by a substantial amount. It is simply not valid to use the 2% correlation of the study to support Santorum's assertion which is substantially different from the study's conditions. I understand that you would like to defend what he should have said instead of trying to defend the complete BS that came out of his mouth, but this is what he actually said:
| Quote: |
"Do you know if you do two things in your life -- if you do two things in your life, you're guaranteed never to be in poverty in this country? What two things, that if you do, will guarantee that you will not be in poverty in America?" he asked the crowd.
"Number one, graduate from high school. Number two, get married. Before you have children," he said. "If you do those two things, you will be successful economically. What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more |
Absolute nonsense. Obviously if he had said something different, if he had simply cited the the Brookings study he wouldn't have made himself look like such a buffoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While it's fairly uncontroversial that a person should get at least minimally educated and be in a sound financial position before having kids, there is more to the story. His 'policy' is half-baked.
What is his policy for those who dropped out and are already past high school age and have a kid or two? Are they supposed to go the Jonathan Swift route?
At a time when there are still 5 or so applicants for every job, I think there needs to be more to the policy than just stay in school and don't have kids. He's dodging the issue, although his basic position is good fatherly advice for anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I assert that those getting married before having children while under the age of 21 are much more likely to end up in poverty than those waiting until age 21 or later, which is the condition specified in the study. |
You assert this without evidence.
| jaykimf wrote: |
I understand that you would like to defend what he should have said instead of trying to defend the complete BS that came out of his mouth |
Ha ha. He's pretty close, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| UknowsI wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Of those who meet the 3 requirements set out by the Brookings Institution, only 2% live in poverty. You're right, Santorum unjustifiably moves from 2% to 0%, and should mention the 3rd requirement.
The rest of your post is just nitpicking. |
If Santorum wants to argue that graduating from high school and getting married before having children are good things that would reduce the probability of poverty, OK. But that's not what he said. He is simply wrong. The Brookings study simply does not support what he claims. Their 3 conditions are far more stringent than Santorum's. Under Santorum's much looser conditions, I suspect the probability of poverty would be nowhere near the 2% of the Brookings study. There is no study that I am aware of that would support his contention. I dispute his having his facts straight. He is wrong. |
I agree with jaykimf. In addition to what has already been pointed out, the biggest flaw is the age old fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. If a person drops out of high school, it is often because of an underlying problem which may be completely unrelated to high school. Making them finish high school will not always remove the underlying problem which might cause poverty more than lack of education in itself.
Of course politicians have a slightly different view of true and false, but from a scientific view point, it is very clear that he lacks backup for his statements in addition to the fact that it's completely implausible. South Korea should fit his ideal pretty well, since it has the highest rate of high school graduations and it also seems to me that most people get married before they have children. |
From a scientific viewpoint he lacks backup? He cited a nonpartisan poverty study. And these are the numbers where you claim correlation, not causation.
|
His source is good, but it does not state the same thing as he does. Since I don't know is actual source I will use the quote:
| Quote: |
Santorum has a point, according to a 2009 study by the Brookings Institution. The study found that Americans who finished high school, acquired a full-time job and waited until age 21 to get married before having children were much less likely to end up in poverty.
In fact, "young adults who did all three had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class." |
There are no logical flaws in the original study, but it never claims causation. However, causation is necessary for Santorum's statement to be true because he believes finishing high school and getting married are acts that in themselves reduces poverty. It is quite obvious that people who are on a good track in life will get an education, a full time job and not end up in poverty (which is what the study stays). Sanctorum on the other hand claim that making troubled youth finish high school and getting married will stop them from getting into poverty. The difference is quite huge to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwaysgood
Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All of these years I thought dropping out of high school and having children out of wedlock was the path to prosperity. How lucky it is that Rick Santorum came along to educate me. Next thing you know he will be telling me that lottery tickets are not a sound investment strategy, and my diet plan (Doritos/Sprite) has some flaws...
I'm sure if we just tell poor people to graduate and hold off on having kids they will do it, right?
But, as a presidential candidate will Rick actually do anything to increase graduation rates? No, but he will cut federal funding for education. Brilliant.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/09/santorum-parents-not-obama-know-what-is-best-for-their-childs-education/
| Quote: |
| Cedar Falls, Ia. � Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said today he favors eliminating federal funding for education and the bureaucratic strings attached to federal programs for schools. |
Santorum also supports a constitutional ban on abortion, which would lead to more children born out of wedlock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh oh. Wouldn't want that money going straight to schools from State and local taxes... gotta make sure a big, fat Federal bureaucracy gets a cut of it first.
Santorum is wrong on pretty much everything else though, lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
A couple of blindingly obvious points:
Those who drop out of education and have babies early tend to come from a lower starting point in life.
Whilst education may be a good way for the individual to work his/her way out of poverty, it won't end poverty in society. If everyone had a degree, the government would just encourage more immigrants to wash dishes and all the other menial, poorly-paid jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| "What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more." Nonsense. Let's suppose there are 100million people in the workforce. 60 million have good middle class jobs, 10million unemployed, 10 million poverty level jobs, and 20million in between poverty and middle class. At present there very well may be a very high correlation between graduating from high school and getting married after age 21 before having children with being in the middle class. Teenage parents without a HS degree might well be stuck in poverty. But if everyone did as Santorum suggests, it would do little if anything to increase the number of good paying jobs or any kind of jobs in the economy. There would still be 100million people competing for the the 60million middle class jobs and 10million of them would still end up unemployed. If everyone did as Santorum suggests, it wouldn't be the end of poverty, it would be the end of the correlation between poverty and not having a H.S. diploma etc. The level of poverty would be pretty much the same. The winners and losers would just have to be determined by some other basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| There would still be 100million people competing for the the 60million middle class jobs and 10million of them would still end up unemployed. If everyone did as Santorum suggests, it wouldn't be the end of poverty, it would be the end of the correlation between poverty and not having a H.S. diploma etc. |
Not necessarily. It would more likely mean a more educated workforce, which could demand higher wages. There are not a finite amount of jobs or opportunities economy-wide. If there are more higher-earners, it means more customers and clients for the professions, as well as a higher demand for middle-class housing and consumer products. Indeed, this lifts-all-boats assumption is the very basis for left-wing economics, which states that when the rich pay a moderate income tax rate, it in turn stimulates demand for consumption, which in turn creates a better environment and demand for the products and services the rich offer to the marketplace.
The poor will always be with us, but if everyone achieved a high school degree and waited until 21 to be married and then have children, it would have a dramatic effect on lifting much of America into the middle-class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
duplicate
Last edited by jaykimf on Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:21 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| There would still be 100million people competing for the the 60million middle class jobs and 10million of them would still end up unemployed. If everyone did as Santorum suggests, it wouldn't be the end of poverty, it would be the end of the correlation between poverty and not having a H.S. diploma etc. |
Not necessarily. It would more likely mean a more educated workforce, which could demand higher wages. There are not a finite amount of jobs or opportunities economy-wide. If there are more higher-earners, it means more customers and clients for the professions, as well as a higher demand for middle-class housing and consumer products. Indeed, this lifts-all-boats assumption is the very basis for left-wing economics, which states that when the rich pay a moderate income tax rate, it in turn stimulates demand for consumption, which in turn creates a better environment and demand for the products and services the rich offer to the marketplace.
The poor will always be with us, but if everyone achieved a high school degree and waited until 21 to be married and then have children, it would have a dramatic effect on lifting much of America into the middle-class. |
Not necessarily, and not even likely in my opinion. While it may be true that raising an individual's education level might allow them to ask for a higher wage and PERHAPS even receive it, it does not follow that increasing the size of the pool of available workers with the minimum qualification of a HS diploma will result in higher wages for the group. On the contrary, its possible that the increased supply of minimally qualified workers competing for a limited number of jobs will actually put downward pressure on wage rates. Furthermore, the number of good paying jobs that require only a HS degree has been declining for decades as the US has lost manufacturing jobs overseas. That trend is unlikely to reverse. A HS diploma is simply not a ticket into the middle class. At best it might be a minimum prerequisite. I think everyone would agree that everyone having a minimum of a HS diploma would be a good thing and that unmarried teenage parents are not good. Probably Santorum's recommendations would raise some people out of poverty , but the effect would be nowhere near what he claims. His assertion that poverty would be no more and that you would be guaranteed to never be in poverty is just absurd and completely out of touch with the reality of our economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| There would still be 100million people competing for the the 60million middle class jobs and 10million of them would still end up unemployed. If everyone did as Santorum suggests, it wouldn't be the end of poverty, it would be the end of the correlation between poverty and not having a H.S. diploma etc. |
Not necessarily. It would more likely mean a more educated workforce, which could demand higher wages. There are not a finite amount of jobs or opportunities economy-wide. If there are more higher-earners, it means more customers and clients for the professions, as well as a higher demand for middle-class housing and consumer products. Indeed, this lifts-all-boats assumption is the very basis for left-wing economics, which states that when the rich pay a moderate income tax rate, it in turn stimulates demand for consumption, which in turn creates a better environment and demand for the products and services the rich offer to the marketplace.
The poor will always be with us, but if everyone achieved a high school degree and waited until 21 to be married and then have children, it would have a dramatic effect on lifting much of America into the middle-class. |
Not necessarily, and not even likely in my opinion. While it may be true that raising an individual's education level might allow them to ask for a higher wage and PERHAPS even receive it, it does not follow that increasing the size of the pool of available workers with the minimum qualification of a HS diploma will result in higher wages for the group. On the contrary, its possible that the increased supply of minimally qualified workers competing for a limited number of jobs will actually put downward pressure on wage rates. Furthermore, the number of good paying jobs that require only a HS degree has been declining for decades as the US has lost manufacturing jobs overseas. That trend is unlikely to reverse. A HS diploma is simply not a ticket into the middle class. At best it might be a minimum prerequisite. I think everyone would agree that everyone having a minimum of a HS diploma would be a good thing and that unmarried teenage parents are not good. Probably Santorum's recommendations would raise some people out of poverty , but the effect would be nowhere near what he claims. His assertion that poverty would be no more and that you would be guaranteed to never be in poverty is just absurd and completely out of touch with the reality of our economy. |
The Return of US Manufacturing
| Quote: |
In 2010, in fact, U.S. manufacturing added jobs for the first time since 1997. The 136,000 new jobs represent a 1.2 percent increase from 2009.
In addition, the number of maritime containers coming into the country, an indicator of the volume of imported manufactured goods, started to decline even before the last recession. As Chart 1 below shows, the number of imported containers peaked at 11.7 million in 2006 and fell to 9.9 million by 2009, a decrease of 18 percent.
U.S. firms have good reasons to want to come back home. China, which for 20 years has been the primary destination of outsourced jobs, is becoming more expensive. And skilled labor there is becoming scarcer. At the same time, the domestic environment is providing incentives to encourage firms to come back home.
. . .
When shipping costs between China and the U.S. are taken into consideration, outsourcing becomes even less attractive. In early 2002, when crude oil was about $20 per barrel, the shipping cost of a fully loaded standard 40-foot container from China to the U.S. was about $3,000. In the summer of 2008, when crude climbed to a record high of $147 per barrel, the shipping cost went up to $8,000. Now that crude oil is near $100 per barrel, we can expect the shipping cost to be around $6,000. |
Also,
Bringing It Back Home: The Resurgence of U.S. Manufacturing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The Return of US Manufacturing
| Quote: |
In 2010, in fact, U.S. manufacturing added jobs for the first time since 1997. The 136,000 new jobs represent a 1.2 percent increase from 2009.
|
|
Yes it would be a great thing if more manufacturing jobs returned to the U.S., But at this point it's just a trickle. How does that 136,000 gain in 2010 compare with the number of jobs lost in the previous 2 years? Or with the millions of jobs lost in the last 40 years? That's not even enough jobs to match the increasing population. Even if manufacturing jobs grow at a much higher rate, it will hardly put a dent in the 46 million Americans living in poverty. Is it really so hard for you to admit that Santorum is delusional in thinking HS diplomas and marriage before having children would end poverty in America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
