6 ms·

This is controversial (and shouldn’t be) but what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making

by hluska 6y ago

This is controversial (and shouldn’t be) but what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making sure that Johnny was fed properly?? Countries with as much child poverty as Canada and the United States shouldn’t be surprised when their testing results don’t improve. This is pretty fucking basic science yet I’ve been fighting this battle for over twenty years and quite literally nobody in power gives enough of a fuck to fix it.

jmt_ 6y ago
This reminds me of Maslow's pyramid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs If a child is struggling at the basic needs level of this pyramid then hitting the self fulfillment bit at the top is excruciatingly difficult
- TT3351 6y ago
  Of course I can't find it now no matter how hard I look, but there was an excellent blog post on here many months ago explaining how the pyramid of needs has become somewhat of a lazy shortcut people like to see on PowerPoint slides, which doesn't actually communicate useful information. It made its way into the wider discourse via educators, who were actually using the model incorrectly in the first place according to a few quotes from Maslow himself in the blog. It's a shame I couldn't find the article. Basically, it's an abstraction of needs that is just too good/simple to be true.
buzzy_hacker 6y ago
There’s hope yet: “The reduction in child poverty would be larger still, from 13.7 percent to 3.6 percent. Only about a quarter as many children would remain in poverty after the policy package’s adoption.” https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21456242/joe-biden-poverty-checks-kamala-harris https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21456242/joe-biden-povert...
- hluska 6y ago
  I’m very hopeful about that program, but if you’re interested, I’d love to show you a myriad of Canadian plans to end child poverty by certain dates in the past. I have a lot of hope for the United States now but if my own country’s difficulty is a guide, this will be a tough slog!
kemiller2002 6y ago
My cousin and her late husband are dentists. They spent years helping the Native Americans with dental work. During frequent discussions, she mentioned that it's sad that they have bad dental hygiene. Ultimately what she said was, "It's really difficult to convince someone they should focus on brushing their teeth, when really the sole idea occupying their mind is if they are going to get to eat the next day." So many things could be solved so effortlessly, by us spending so little money on basic things.
Minor49er 6y ago
Schools in the US serve nearly 12 million free breakfasts and over 20 million free lunches to children every day: https://schoolnutrition.org/AboutSchoolMeals/SchoolMealTrendsStats/ https://schoolnutrition.org/AboutSchoolMeals/SchoolMealTrend...
- hluska 6y ago
  That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.
  - harperlee 6y ago
    > children were still the poorest age group What... does that mean? I see how someone who cannot (legally) work yet can be poorer than other age groups, but I am sure that’s not what is meant. But is a child somehow deemed poorer than its caregivers? Or perhaps is the child as poor as its poorest caregiver? Or how does that fact appear?
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      I'm curious about this too. My best guess is that they're measuring household income and there are a lot of kids with low household incomes (more than adults with low household incomes, especially when you have more kids than adults in a household). /shrug
      - emteycz 6y ago
        Poor households tend to have many kids, and the parent/s are often very young, sometimes even under 18. It's not unseen to have 32-year old parents living with their 16-year old daughter and her two babies, a 14-year old child and another ~12-year old child. Of course these are extremely poor compared to even most of low income households. Perhaps that's what was meant by the comment.
      - hluska 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Chris2048 6y ago
Is it not the "teach a man to fish" problem? Sometimes, welfare can cause more problems than it creates. So what should "people in power" do? Setup welfare programs, and in turn welfare dependence? Education was seen a cure for poverty, which in turn is why Johnny isn't fed.
- hluska 6y ago
  The shortest answer is that it’s far cheaper to feed two families than to incarcerate one adult. The longer answer is that you don’t necessarily need welfare programs to help people out of poverty. Rather, a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence. Edit - Also, fuck no, it’s not a teach a man to fish argument. We’re talking about child poverty.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Sure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). But that's a different plan from "the government" in general. > a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence. You are describing "safety-net" welfare, but how do you ensure any form of welfare remains a safety-net, and doesn't become a norm? welfare for those not in poverty is much more likely to work this way. If you specifically set out to tackle poverty, the most important thing are educational programs, and limited welfare programs. I'm not against welfare in any case, but I see it as a double-edged sword that is too often seen as a "throw money at the problem" solution. > Also, fuck no It's a metaphor, the difference between men and children aren't relevant. The abstract meaning is dependence vs self-dependence. Giving a child food solves their food, but not their poverty. The way it was originally stated: what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making sure that Johnny was fed properly I could just as well say "what if instead of spending so much time wondering why a man can't fish, we spent that money and effort on making sure that man is fed properly", and the answer is the same: because then they will be dependant on us (the government) to provide food. This doesn't mean we shouldn't provide food, but that both are required, since the original post post specifically proposed providing food should displace education i.e. we spend money elsewhere. In fact, what we spend on food is a problem in itself, but unrelated to what we spend on education, we should not cannibalise one in favour of the other as if they are competing solutions - they are both solutions to the same problem, but do not compete because they have different scope: one long term (poverty) the other short (hunger).

by hluska 6y ago

jmt_ 6y ago

This reminds me of Maslow's pyramid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs If a child is struggling at the basic needs level of this pyramid then hitting the self fulfillment bit at the top is excruciatingly difficult

TT3351 6y ago
Of course I can't find it now no matter how hard I look, but there was an excellent blog post on here many months ago explaining how the pyramid of needs has become somewhat of a lazy shortcut people like to see on PowerPoint slides, which doesn't actually communicate useful information. It made its way into the wider discourse via educators, who were actually using the model incorrectly in the first place according to a few quotes from Maslow himself in the blog. It's a shame I couldn't find the article. Basically, it's an abstraction of needs that is just too good/simple to be true.

buzzy_hacker 6y ago

There’s hope yet: “The reduction in child poverty would be larger still, from 13.7 percent to 3.6 percent. Only about a quarter as many children would remain in poverty after the policy package’s adoption.” https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21456242/joe-biden-poverty-checks-kamala-harris https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21456242/joe-biden-povert...

hluska 6y ago
I’m very hopeful about that program, but if you’re interested, I’d love to show you a myriad of Canadian plans to end child poverty by certain dates in the past. I have a lot of hope for the United States now but if my own country’s difficulty is a guide, this will be a tough slog!

kemiller2002 6y ago

My cousin and her late husband are dentists. They spent years helping the Native Americans with dental work. During frequent discussions, she mentioned that it's sad that they have bad dental hygiene. Ultimately what she said was, "It's really difficult to convince someone they should focus on brushing their teeth, when really the sole idea occupying their mind is if they are going to get to eat the next day." So many things could be solved so effortlessly, by us spending so little money on basic things.

Minor49er 6y ago

Schools in the US serve nearly 12 million free breakfasts and over 20 million free lunches to children every day: https://schoolnutrition.org/AboutSchoolMeals/SchoolMealTrendsStats/ https://schoolnutrition.org/AboutSchoolMeals/SchoolMealTrend...

hluska 6y ago
That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.
- harperlee 6y ago
  > children were still the poorest age group What... does that mean? I see how someone who cannot (legally) work yet can be poorer than other age groups, but I am sure that’s not what is meant. But is a child somehow deemed poorer than its caregivers? Or perhaps is the child as poor as its poorest caregiver? Or how does that fact appear?
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    I'm curious about this too. My best guess is that they're measuring household income and there are a lot of kids with low household incomes (more than adults with low household incomes, especially when you have more kids than adults in a household). /shrug
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Poor households tend to have many kids, and the parent/s are often very young, sometimes even under 18. It's not unseen to have 32-year old parents living with their 16-year old daughter and her two babies, a 14-year old child and another ~12-year old child. Of course these are extremely poor compared to even most of low income households. Perhaps that's what was meant by the comment.
    - hluska 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Chris2048 6y ago

Is it not the "teach a man to fish" problem? Sometimes, welfare can cause more problems than it creates. So what should "people in power" do? Setup welfare programs, and in turn welfare dependence? Education was seen a cure for poverty, which in turn is why Johnny isn't fed.

hluska 6y ago
The shortest answer is that it’s far cheaper to feed two families than to incarcerate one adult. The longer answer is that you don’t necessarily need welfare programs to help people out of poverty. Rather, a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence. Edit - Also, fuck no, it’s not a teach a man to fish argument. We’re talking about child poverty.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Sure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). But that's a different plan from "the government" in general. > a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence. You are describing "safety-net" welfare, but how do you ensure any form of welfare remains a safety-net, and doesn't become a norm? welfare for those not in poverty is much more likely to work this way. If you specifically set out to tackle poverty, the most important thing are educational programs, and limited welfare programs. I'm not against welfare in any case, but I see it as a double-edged sword that is too often seen as a "throw money at the problem" solution. > Also, fuck no It's a metaphor, the difference between men and children aren't relevant. The abstract meaning is dependence vs self-dependence. Giving a child food solves their food, but not their poverty. The way it was originally stated: what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making sure that Johnny was fed properly I could just as well say "what if instead of spending so much time wondering why a man can't fish, we spent that money and effort on making sure that man is fed properly", and the answer is the same: because then they will be dependant on us (the government) to provide food. This doesn't mean we shouldn't provide food, but that both are required, since the original post post specifically proposed providing food should displace education i.e. we spend money elsewhere. In fact, what we spend on food is a problem in itself, but unrelated to what we spend on education, we should not cannibalise one in favour of the other as if they are competing solutions - they are both solutions to the same problem, but do not compete because they have different scope: one long term (poverty) the other short (hunger).