It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reducing Poverty in the U.S.: Race and Reality

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
If the problem we have is poverty, the #1 solution is EDUCATION. People who are less ignorant find ways to make money and their their kids do better, and their kids do better, and so on. I am a product of dirt poor Appalachian people, as recently as four generations back, and I am successful and have achieved advanced degrees. My grandparents were not genetically stupid, but if you had met them you would have thought so. They were simply uneducated.

I believe that stigma and low expectations lead many who live in poverty to underperform in a multi-generational cycle of despair. Many of those people we see here in the U.S. who are in that situation are African American. It is easy to look at them in disgust and simply assume that they are poor because there is something wrong with them, or that they are fundamentally inferior to whites. In fact I see a good bit of those sentiments popping up on threads in this forum. So consider these links:


A well known phenomenon called The Flynn Efffect brings into question the results of IQ tests on poverty stricken populations:



"The Flynn effect is the substantial increase in average scores on intelligence tests all over the world. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a standardization sample by convention the average result is set to 100 and the standard deviation of the results is set to 15 points. When IQ tests are revised they are again standardized using a new standardization sample and the average result set to 100. However, if the new sample is tested using older tests in almost every case they score substantially above 100."


The Flynn Effect


Another effect which is well known in scientific communities but for some reason never seems to make it into the mainstream is The Stereotype Threat.



A stereotype threat is the experience of anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group. First developed by social psychologist Claude Steele and his colleagues, stereotype threat has been shown to reduce the performance of individuals who belong to negatively stereotyped groups. For example, stereotype threat can lower the intellectual performance of African-Americans taking the SAT, due to the stereotype that African-Americans are less intelligent than other groups.


Stereotype Threat


If this is all true then large portions of the U.S. population currently hold attitudes that lead them to write off the chances of generations of other Americans to do better for themselves and their children, when in fact almost all of us could prosper if we would only commit to effectively educating each and every person in the country.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Grumble because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
If only that were true, that education is the answer...

Source

...a doctor might earn 40 dollars a month, while a taxi driver might receive 40 dollars a week in tips.

The Cuban state still provides free education from primary school through the university level, an ironic situation given the difficulties of finding employment after graduation. If a job is available, it will pay less than a job as a waiter or taxi driver....



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


If we want to reduce poverty, it must be done on a global level, and I believe I have a solution to this problem. It has nothing to do with education except in spreading the ideas.

To the end of ending poverty and offering a rich life of choices to all, I wrote two threads here. The End of Entropy is the foundational piece and is best read first. The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform is the structural piece. They are linked in my sig.

Only when we have dealt with the need for money can we hope to solve the problem of poverty. As long as we need money, there will be poverty, exploitation, greed, and the power elite.

Please read these two relatively short posts, and pass them on to others to consider.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Our IQ tests are based from Alfred Binet and Goddard. The Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, initiated the standard test used today.


The new Standford-Binet scale, was no longer used solely for advocating education for all children, as was Binet's objective. A new objective of intelligence testing was illustrated in the Stanford-Binet manual with testing ultimately resulting in "curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency (p.7)" (White, 2000).



In 1908, H.H. Goddard, a champion of the eugenics movement, found utility in mental testing as a way to evidence the superiority of the white race. After studying abroad, Goddard brought the Binet-Simon Scale to the United States and translated it into English.

www.indiana.edu...

IQ testings, was meant as a eugenics determining factor.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'm in partial agreement here.

Education is a large part of the answer...just not government education.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


so, education is the answer?

if everyone had a PhD then jobs would just magically appear.

if everyone had a PhD then what would be different.

if every laid off factory worker had a degree, the companies wouldn't have moved abroad?

If every construction worker had a master degree, then the home builders would still be building?

if every single american had a bachelors degree we would magically all have jobs, even though there are 3 workers for every one job that exists?




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Grumble

Only when we have dealt with the need for money can we hope to solve the problem of poverty. As long as we need money, there will be poverty, exploitation, greed, and the power elite.

Please read these two relatively short posts, and pass them on to others to consider.


And exactly what medium of exchange to you propose?
And just how do the presently poor become "rich'?
What exactly will they do to Earn their enrichment?

If the "power elite" has no more money in whatever form where will jobs and manufacturing/production of necessities come from?

Are you proposing a Hive-like existance for all?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It seems the trend here is that education is important but not the "end-all, be-all" solution to everything.

One practicing realism must realize that there are areas where higher education can be important but not ultimately necessary.

What are we going to have?
PhD's in:
"Agricultural Harvesting Methodolgy"
"Routine Vehicular Maintenance"
"Rapid Food Preparation Sciences"
"Convenience Establishment Customer Relations"
"Currency Storage and Exchange Devices"

Come on. A society filled with doctors, lawyers and politicians?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
By definition, half of any population is "below average".

The problem of poverty is that many of these below average people get together and have children.

If your parent(s) does not value education then most likely the children will not succeed in schools. You can send them to the best schools but the schools can't overcome the home environment. Also, children in this environment are not seeing mom and/or dad going off to work at a profession where they earn a substantial income. It's a sad vicious cycle.

Right now, all our children in the US have access to free education. I know people who have taught in troubled schools. One teacher left her job after two years because she was so frustrated with the parents of her children.

Throwing money at schools won't fix the parents.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
If only that were true, that education is the answer...

Source

...a doctor might earn 40 dollars a month, while a taxi driver might receive 40 dollars a week in tips.

The Cuban state still provides free education from primary school through the university level, an ironic situation given the difficulties of finding employment after graduation. If a job is available, it will pay less than a job as a waiter or taxi driver....



Um, do you understand how Cuba is different from the US?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sepermeru

Originally posted by abecedarian
If only that were true, that education is the answer...

Source

...a doctor might earn 40 dollars a month, while a taxi driver might receive 40 dollars a week in tips.

The Cuban state still provides free education from primary school through the university level, an ironic situation given the difficulties of finding employment after graduation. If a job is available, it will pay less than a job as a waiter or taxi driver....



Um, do you understand how Cuba is different from the US?


Yeah, they are a socialist economy with limited capitalistic traits.
US is a limited capitalistic economy with increasing socialistic traits.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Grumble

Only when we have dealt with the need for money can we hope to solve the problem of poverty. As long as we need money, there will be poverty, exploitation, greed, and the power elite.

Please read these two relatively short posts, and pass them on to others to consider.


And exactly what medium of exchange to you propose?
And just how do the presently poor become "rich'?
What exactly will they do to Earn their enrichment?


Have you read the posts?


If the "power elite" has no more money in whatever form where will jobs and manufacturing/production of necessities come from?


Have you read the posts?


Are you proposing a Hive-like existance for all?


No. Have you read the two posts?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
By definition, half of any population is "below average".

I thought the average was the statistical "mean" which would mean those in the middle, and thus exclusive of the lower 1/4-1/3 and upper 1/4-1/3, mathematically speaking.


The problem of poverty is that many of these below average people get together and have children.

But the education system provides equal education for all


If your parent(s) does not value education then most likely the children will not succeed in schools. You can send them to the best schools but the schools can't overcome the home environment. Also, children in this environment are not seeing mom and/or dad going off to work at a profession where they earn a substantial income. It's a sad vicious cycle.

Within which, the public system compares to the private system in which way?

My parents valued education yet I went to public schools. My parents were upper-middle income (greater than 80K per year in 1980), arguably "rich" by some liberal standards. A friend of mine had parents that valued education and sent him to private schools. His parents were upper-middle income as well. I tested better than him on every state required test.


Right now, all our children in the US have access to free education. I know people who have taught in troubled schools. One teacher left her job after two years because she was so frustrated with the parents of her children.

I've known a few that quit because the district chose to spend on expanding district offices instead of investing money on the children.

Your point is?


Throwing money at schools won't fix the parents.

And apparently doesn't fix the schools either.
California instituted their lottery with the intent of investing money not used for paying winners, and not used for administering the lottery itself, investing money into schools. CA residents bought in to that scam whole-heartedly because it was meant to benefit the schools. Considering 20, 30, 100+ million pay-outs for winnings, you'd think the schools would be well off, right? Nope.
The more money the schools get, the more they spend on the "schools"... not the children.

Altruism, any more, is the perceived conception that one is helping when IN FACT people are taking advantage of the empathy to the detriment of those who where the original target for benefit. THIS is what the school districts and unions are doing. Wake up... or go to bed.



edit on 4/20/2011 by abecedarian because: formatting



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


To be frank, i dont care. Because if they really did want the education they could of had it. Since they were not determined enough to achieve such a level of education, i blame it on themselves. Has nothing to do with race also, i promise you.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
And I wonder, can the ignorant somehow realize and support the need for more education, or will their lack of understanding doom them and their children?

The most important reason for more education is to create a more informed population who can then be better citizens. Deny ignorance, right?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join