5 ms·

Depends on how you view fixing income inequality, I would imagine. For example, I don't think you could simply give the poor loads of money and suddenly their k

Depends on how you view fixing income inequality, I would imagine. For example, I don't think you could simply give the poor loads of money and suddenly their kids do well in school. Personally, I view it as an education problem first and foremost. I think the incoming inequality is a red herring, and people are focusing on the wrong problem. Yes, fixing income inequality is required. Yes, fixing income inequality would improve education to a degree - but my contention is that people merely having money won't help the broken education system. Not everyone can go to private schools. Furthermore, "giving people money" in college tuition has been part of the problem in driving prices unrealistically high and reinforcing predatory systems. In my view, focus on education first. More educated people make smart financial decisions. Educated people make better decisions about their life, risk assessment, and quality of life. Educated people raise better children. Educated people are more difficult to fool in blind party politics and do-nothing politicians/systems. Luckily we can do both, education and inequality, but I don't think we can or should expect to ever fix income inequality without at least in tandem fixing education. We need capable humans, and education is the only way to do it; I think.

eropple 7y ago
> I think the incoming inequality is a red herring, and people are focusing on the wrong problem. I grew up moderately well-to-do and attended public school in a lower- to middle-class area. Most people's parents were doing "okay"; some obviously weren't. What has stuck out to me is that the folks who I am least surprised to see having a rough time of it as adults, twelve or so years on, are the people I distinctly remember coming to school in way-past-their-prime clothes or not having money for lunch at school. Which is to say that the idea that it's a "red herring" may be well-meaning but is pretty clearly not true. We know that parental income and stability (and they are interrelated) factor heavily into both educational success and generational affluence. Kids don't learn when they're hungry and they don't learn when they're afraid everybody else is judging them for being poor and having shitty clothes.
osdiab 7y ago
Fixing income inequality != "giving people money", and great teachers still can't help a ton if the kids they're teaching have precarious backgrounds. Regardless, as you mentioned, we need to do both; but based on the research out there and my intuition, my inclination is that lacking income strikes lower on Maslow's hierarchy, and as such probably takes a certain degree of precedence as a prerequisite for benefiting from a stronger education system; and that some classes of money problems can be addressed in more sweeping, efficient way than improving education, which involves a great deal of training and waiting.
specialist 7y ago
"incoming inequality is a red herring" Greater income inequality leads to less civil participation. The Gini Coefficient and Democratic Index seem to line up quite nicely. Coincidence? File under "believe but cannot yet prove", correlation != causation, blah, blah, blah.
jrkatz 7y ago
Reducing income inequality has direct effects on education quality. Much of the public school budget is drawn from local funding. In short, impoverished areas beget impoverished schools and wealthier areas have well-funded schools. Parents working in precarious positions - part time jobs with shifting schedules, or _multiple_ part time jobs with shifting schedules - can struggle to find time to provide support like homework help or supervision to their children. Reducing income inequality increases the tax base & school funding while granting parents more opportunities to engage with their children's education. Many of these poor people are already making the best decisions anyone can in their position: taking the job(s) they can get for the paycheck(s) they can get so they can put food on the table and eke out another two weeks.
- brycesbeard 7y ago
  I was in a public school district that made public the funding received by each school. Because it was a large metro district, we had wealthy areas and impoverished ones. The schools in worse areas were getting about 30% more money from the district, per student, than the wealthier ones. This was to balance out the superior amount of parental funding in the richer neighborhoods.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ericd 7y ago
  This is a related problem, but I think just changing the funding source to the state or national level, like many other developed nations, is a more direct solution.

eropple 7y ago

> I think the incoming inequality is a red herring, and people are focusing on the wrong problem. I grew up moderately well-to-do and attended public school in a lower- to middle-class area. Most people's parents were doing "okay"; some obviously weren't. What has stuck out to me is that the folks who I am least surprised to see having a rough time of it as adults, twelve or so years on, are the people I distinctly remember coming to school in way-past-their-prime clothes or not having money for lunch at school. Which is to say that the idea that it's a "red herring" may be well-meaning but is pretty clearly not true. We know that parental income and stability (and they are interrelated) factor heavily into both educational success and generational affluence. Kids don't learn when they're hungry and they don't learn when they're afraid everybody else is judging them for being poor and having shitty clothes.

osdiab 7y ago

Fixing income inequality != "giving people money", and great teachers still can't help a ton if the kids they're teaching have precarious backgrounds. Regardless, as you mentioned, we need to do both; but based on the research out there and my intuition, my inclination is that lacking income strikes lower on Maslow's hierarchy, and as such probably takes a certain degree of precedence as a prerequisite for benefiting from a stronger education system; and that some classes of money problems can be addressed in more sweeping, efficient way than improving education, which involves a great deal of training and waiting.

specialist 7y ago

"incoming inequality is a red herring" Greater income inequality leads to less civil participation. The Gini Coefficient and Democratic Index seem to line up quite nicely. Coincidence? File under "believe but cannot yet prove", correlation != causation, blah, blah, blah.

jrkatz 7y ago

Reducing income inequality has direct effects on education quality. Much of the public school budget is drawn from local funding. In short, impoverished areas beget impoverished schools and wealthier areas have well-funded schools. Parents working in precarious positions - part time jobs with shifting schedules, or _multiple_ part time jobs with shifting schedules - can struggle to find time to provide support like homework help or supervision to their children. Reducing income inequality increases the tax base & school funding while granting parents more opportunities to engage with their children's education. Many of these poor people are already making the best decisions anyone can in their position: taking the job(s) they can get for the paycheck(s) they can get so they can put food on the table and eke out another two weeks.

brycesbeard 7y ago
I was in a public school district that made public the funding received by each school. Because it was a large metro district, we had wealthy areas and impoverished ones. The schools in worse areas were getting about 30% more money from the district, per student, than the wealthier ones. This was to balance out the superior amount of parental funding in the richer neighborhoods.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ericd 7y ago
This is a related problem, but I think just changing the funding source to the state or national level, like many other developed nations, is a more direct solution.