Neil Brooks wrote:
I'll just ask the question, again:
How many -- as a % -- comprise this "class of people?"
I'm not going to entertain your repetitions of the same questions over and
over again Neil. Asking a question does not pose a valid point. What does
it matter the percentage? Did you do the 10 minute research I suggest in a
previous post? Have you ever looked at what the social experts who deal
with this class of people have acknowledged for a long time? I'm sorry, but
your question is completely irrelevant.
The incentive? They don't make squat.
No - the incentive is that they can live off the programs and do nothing
else. They may make squat, but their ambition is for nothing more than that
squat.
If the majority of these people -- for argument's sake (since I don't
know) live in urban areas -- then ... what opportunities should they,
instead, take?
The majority do live in urban areas and in depressed counties across the
United States. How about if they take the same opportunities that the
people around them have taken? Get off your butt, learn something, put your
nose to the grindstone a bit, and become a productive member of society.
For generations, the opportunity available to those without a trade, a
skill, or a college education was always ... a factory job.
So? That was true of a large percentage of America. People did that.
There are people all over this country that are working every day. Not all
of them - in fact most of them were not born with silver spoons in their
mouths. They carried and paid off the debt of getting an education, working
their way up, and becoming something. It took work, but they did it.
That allowed ... potentially ... millions of people to move into
middle class status.
But ... how's the state of those jobs, these days -- say, over the
last decade?
Things have changed. Big deal. It will take more of an education to get a
decent job today than it did back in the day of abundant factory jobs - oh
well. The opportunities are abundant for those in need, to get that
education. Not a Masters, but certainly a basic education to be marketable
in a trade that is the equivelent of the factory job of years ago.
My understanding is that they are all but totally gone -- the victims
of offshoring virtually our entire manufacturing sector.
Sure - they indeed are gone, but we are not wired to be able to do only
factory work. There is retain (admitedly not a great career path, but
better than welfare), there are technical positions, and more - all of which
pay better than flipping burgers at McDonalds, and contribute to society.
So ... what *should* these people do? Is it reasonable to expect that
-- without a serious, well-funded, focused, and "industry-aware"
training program -- these very people are going to buy Mary Kay
franchises? Start the next Intel? Become e-commerce entrepreneurs??
They should do the same thing that millions of middle class people around
them do. Get off their butt, get a job, pursue whatever education they
wish, or simply work at their job for their entire working life (nothing
wrong with that). Note the difference between that which contributes and
simply remaining on social programs.
These people -- based on my theory (largely urban) are beset by the
worst public education infrastructure in our country.
Urban areas certainly suffer the worst of the education system (at least
here in NY), but even at that, it's not a bad education. What is bad is the
behavior. The information offered in the schools is the same as that
offered in affluent areas (except for extra programs). So the kids don't
want to go to school and would rather deal dope and do knife fights. Oh
well. It's not for lack of available education - it's right there in front
of them. Instead, they know they can live off the system and don't need
that education, so they don't care. They know they can deal dope and become
financial kingpins in the hood. That too is not a failing of the education
system. It's there. They just don't want it.
What *should* they do??
Don't know. They don't want to work for the sake of becoming a contributing
member of society. They don't need to since they been raised in a way that
they were taken care of without working. They know the system and how to
work it. A well intended system has become unmanageable and now creates its
own monsters.
I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at
some point. While I don't claim to have known anything NEAR a
representative sample size, I've NEVER met even ONE who espoused
contentment with this situation, or who actions indicated that they
were interested in continuing to be recipients of government
subsidies, or that they wished to raise their children to do so.
I think we all probably know or know of someone who was on a welfare system
of some sort at a time, and moved past it. That's not what we are talking
about though. Read anything you want on the welfare system and the
generations that have perfected the role of welfare recipient, passing this
knowledge along to their kids. This is so well acknowledged that it's hard
to believe it has to be mentioned.
I think it's simply a convenient and self-serving argument to talk
about the inter-generational welfare notion, the apocryphal story of
the "welfare queen in her new Cadillac and fur coat, with the acrylic
nails," etc., etc.
I think you need to do that 10 minutes of research I suggested Neil.
What I DO see is articles about industries that move into blighted
areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs.
Not sure what you're making reference to here.
--
-Mike-