Do you even know what the OECD is?

What causes a person's poor outcome--lack of personal responsibility or things beyond their personal control? This site talks about social costs of inadequate education. Lots of stuff in there about low birth weight, lack of pre-natal care affecting black families as opposed to white families. http://mea.org/tef/pdf/social_costs_of_inadequate.pdf

Growing gap in marriage between college graduates http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... spx#page1s and high school graduates.

Look at employment figures for those with college degrees versus those without: http://www.brookings.edu/up-front/posts ... one-looney

Oh, everybody could what I do if only they had my character or so the mantra goes. The reality is that those who do not have the ability to get through school are facing increasing bleak prospects. And social problems result when people cannot get decent jobs. Some rural communities have been decimated by meth. Do you think that before or after job opportunities became scarce?

Even if you have been poor and have succeeded against the odds you probably have better than average intelligence, drive etc. And like it or not, if you are white and male, you have a leg up to begin with in our society. In any case, pat yourself on the back if you done better than your circumstances indicated rather than assume that others have failed because of lack of character. Most likely (absent poverty) your circumstances are quite a different than those who don't make it.

.

danivon wrote:Do you even know what the OECD is?

Because I know you are too busy to take the time to read the post immediately preceding yours, I repost a portion of it:

Doctor Fate wrote:I went through their website. They are liberal to the core. Now, that does not mean they are wrong. It does mean they are not objective.

Better question: who are they accountable to?

Best question: are we accountable to them?

The mission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.

The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. We work with governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental change. We measure productivity and global flows of trade and investment. We analyse and compare data to predict future trends. We set international standards on a wide range of things, from agriculture and tax to the safety of chemicals.

Now, in a sense this is funny: liberals say the size of the pie is fixed (basically) and that the rich take more than their fair share. Here we have an NGO saying they want to help ALL countries. You can't. One size doesn't fit all.

Frankly, I have no interest in the US becoming more like other countries. Which one? What "shared experiences" do other countries have that would help solve our "problems?" The only place, I think, anyone can point to is healthcare. And, when that came up, Democrats didn't listen to anyone except special interests.

While it's missing the typo's someone here is famous for, this could have been written by any of President Obama's acolytes.

So, umm, basically as I predicted, rather than address the report itself, you are diverted into denying that the OECD could ever be anything but hopelessly biased.

Firstly, the OECD is not a NGO. It's an intergovernmental organisation, based on an expansion of the one that was set up to administer Marshall Aid. So, seems you don't actually know what it is.

You don't want to be like other countries? Fair enough. Enjoy your murder rates.

danivon wrote:So, umm, basically as I predicted, rather than address the report itself, you are diverted into denying that the OECD could ever be anything but hopelessly biased.

Again, reading their website tells me far more about their outlook generally than one study. They do have a story about a new organization Soros is investing in, which they say will be important. Lots of articles on Leftist goals.

Firstly, the OECD is not a NGO. It's an intergovernmental organisation, based on an expansion of the one that was set up to administer Marshall Aid. So, seems you don't actually know what it is.

That's pretty nitpicky. Based on Wikipedia, I'm not sure you're right:

In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status by excluding government representatives from membership in the organization. The term is usually applied only to organizations that pursue wider social aims that have political aspects, but are not openly political organizations such as political parties.

We don't actually hire people to work there. Meaning, the US government may support it financially, but has no input on hiring. That seems NGOish.

The OCED supports expanding the power of the UN and a host of liberal causes. That may not matter to you, but it says something about their bent. I am not willing to spend dozens of hours deconstructing a report when I believe the organization has a clear goal.

You don't want to be like other countries? Fair enough. Enjoy your murder rates.

Cheap shot, but I'd expect no less. We have the freedom to own firearms. Why? Because we learned it is necessary as a protection against tyranny. Thanks for the lesson.

freeman2 wrote:What causes a person's poor outcome--lack of personal responsibility or things beyond their personal control? This site talks about social costs of inadequate education. Lots of stuff in there about low birth weight, lack of pre-natal care affecting black families as opposed to white families. http://mea.org/tef/pdf/social_costs_of_inadequate.pdf

Growing gap in marriage between college graduates http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... spx#page1s and high school graduates.

Look at employment figures for those with college degrees versus those without: http://www.brookings.edu/up-front/posts ... one-looney

Oh, everybody could what I do if only they had my character or so the mantra goes. The reality is that those who do not have the ability to get through school are facing increasing bleak prospects. And social problems result when people cannot get decent jobs. Some rural communities have been decimated by meth. Do you think that before or after job opportunities became scarce?

Even if you have been poor and have succeeded against the odds you probably have better than average intelligence, drive etc. And like it or not, if you are white and male, you have a leg up to begin with in our society. In any case, pat yourself on the back if you done better than your circumstances indicated rather than assume that others have failed because of lack of character. Most likely (absent poverty) your circumstances are quite a different than those who don't make it.

.

Whether you graduate high school, get to college, avoid meth, and adequately plan for pregnancy is somewhat up to the individual, no? I would say that it is mostly up to the individual.

rickyp wrote:http://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,3343,en_2649_37443_44575438_1_1_1_1,00.html

sorry. didn't realize the link had dated. theres a direct link to the newest study here.

It's an indirect link, but I was able to find it. I think it is an interesting study. In a lot of cases they don't show the US results, particularly as it results to income.

They do show that in education there is a relative lack of mobility in the US. That's been my experience to a certain extent, but not because the state or country is evil. In Mass poorer towns do receive more funds from the state and sometime have higher costs per pupils than wealthier towns. For example, the town I live in pays average for education costs per kid, but is among the top performers in the state. This trend persists because people (really cultures) who value education continue to move to the town. You can see that because we have a large influx of people from cultures that value education, including Jews, Chinese, Indians, and Russians. Parents focus a huge amount of energy on their kids education. The schools are good, not because they are well funded, but because the parents supplement their children's education by reading to them, taking them to libraries, telling them to behave in school, etc.

It would also be valuable to look at the US across states. A lot of education spending in this country is determined at the state level. If people in Mississippi spend less for education, and their kids settle in Mississippi, the correlation will be strong no matter what Massachusetts does. We do have a federal system here so it is not analogous to a country without that sort of arrangement. Nevertheless, I do think these cross country comparisons can be very valuable.

Ray Jay wrote:Whether you graduate high school, get to college, avoid meth, and adequately plan for pregnancy is somewhat up to the individual, no? I would say that it is mostly up to the individual.

Squarely in the middle of the Republican party.

ray

Whether you graduate high school, get to college, avoid meth, and adequately plan for pregnancy is somewhat up to the individual, no? I would say that it is mostly up to the individual.

An individual can over come any obstacle. However, the more obstacles placed before a group of people, the fewer will over come all of them.
Its about the odds....
Positive Social mobility means that a person has improved their circumstances from their birth. All the OECD study does (and all the study is, is an aggregation of data) is illustrate that as a percentage - Americans are less likely than most other Western nations to end up having found themselves in a higehr social strata then their parents.
The key problems seem to be unequal access to education (especially secondary and higher) and an unequal burden from the cost of health care.
So: the inequality of access to these two key determinants condemns them to more difficult odds at over coming their circumstance.
In essence, by NOT 'socializing" equal pportunity of access to these key elements societies limit (determine) the outcomes for large groups of people.
Just by stacking the odds against them.

Cross posted. (I think no study can be more than directional. But the directions ARE pretty clear. )

DF, if you looked up the OECD on wikipedia, you'd see that ministers from member states' governments sit on the key board. Due to that governmental role, it cannot be an NGO (given what the N stands for).

(and are you saying that gun ownership is what causes your high murder rate? I think there are other factors, but you have hit on a key one for sure, even if you think the rest of the world lives under 'tyranny')

Ray Jay, what is 'adequately planning for pregnancy'? Given that no form of contraception is foolproof, guaranteed, or without possible effects, what are you suggesting here? The thing about life is that it doesn't always go to plan.

danivon wrote:DF, if you looked up the OECD on wikipedia, you'd see that ministers from member states' governments sit on the key board. Due to that governmental role, it cannot be an NGO (given what the N stands for).

It's an SGO then. Great. It's still a leftist organization.

(and are you saying that gun ownership is what causes your high murder rate? I think there are other factors, but you have hit on a key one for sure, even if you think the rest of the world lives under 'tyranny')

No, Mr. Obnoxious. You made the ridiculous point about our murder rate. If you did not mean to imply guns are part of that, I will apologize. However, I know I'm on safe ground. There was no other reason for your snarkiness.

We pay 25% of the budget. That seems another easy bit of savings. Before anyone says out little it is, I would take it in my checking account.

Our representative? Well, it's none other than "Obama's brain."

What does the 's' stand for? Never heard of SGOs before.

Well, that's because I just made it up. Sorry, I initially planned to explain it and got distracted. It's "Some Governmental Agency."

Ultimately, I reject the idea that the game is fixed. President Obama: single Mom, impoverished, absentee father . . .

The number of examples like that is legion. Furthermore, the fact is we've spent trillions on "The Great Society" and guess what? We've still got poverty. Why? Because governmental aid encourages it. If the government will give able-bodied folks housing, food, cell phones and who knows what else, then some will conclude they have no reason to work. Others will make money on the black market and still feast off the government.

Ok, you made it up. Does that still mean you are going to steadfastly refuse to even address the OECD study?

danivon wrote:
Ray Jay, what is 'adequately planning for pregnancy'? Given that no form of contraception is foolproof, guaranteed, or without possible effects, what are you suggesting here? The thing about life is that it doesn't always go to plan.

I don't think that breaking condoms are one of the primary reasons for intergenerational poverty in the US.