Comics Creators

Diversity in Modern Society



Government money is there to pay for what society deems necessary and isn’t provided in any other manner. If some students can’t afford a suitable education I think it is a good idea to let the government subsidize that.


Government’s role in reducing inequality and poverty is something we’ve discussed many times before; I don’t think there’s any argument that it’s a key underlying issue.


Every time I tried to say that the diversity war and fixing inequality should really be about poverty I was told it was white people hijacking the topic. When the proposed solution is more money for the poor.

44% of US adults have a further education degree. By a quick wiki it’s 7th in the world. Here’s the top 30:

Canada 54%
Russia 54%
Israel 49%
Japan 48%
Luxembourg 46%
South Korea 45%
United States 44%
Australia 42%
Finland 42%
Norway 42%
United Kingdom 42%
Ireland 41%
Switzerland 40%
Sweden 39%
Estonia 38%
Belgium 37%
Iceland 37%
Lithuania 37%
Denmark 36%
New Zealand 36%
Spain 35%
Netherlands 34%
France 32%
Austria 30%
Latvia 30%
Slovenia 29%
Greece 28%
Germany 27%
Poland 27%
Hungary 23%

The minority gap in education manifests from the start of grade school. There’s mountains of research on this, and from the looks of things no clear answer as ti why it might be - it socio-economic, it’s cultural, its about your home environment, your community and so on. Basically all the things we think of as being good for a child lead to good education results, all the things that can get in the way of that lead to poorer results.

For me I don’t think putting more money into college is a good solution. The gap is already firmed up by then. I’d prefer to see much more work being done with under 10 education.


Now it’s my turn to say I’d go further; it’s not just education - better, more integrated, investment in early years (and perinatal) public health, healthcare, social care and education is a key step in improving outcomes.


My wife used to teach in the poorest school district in our home state, a state with a significant inner city poverty issue that was hundreds of miles away. These things are usually measured by how many kids in the school district are on the free and reduced lunch program. This school district had 100% of the students on the free lunch program.

The biggest issue was lack of parental involvement in education. Some of that was because parents didn’t have time from working too much and some of that was parents that didn’t care. My mother-in-law worked in the same school district as a pre-school and first grade teacher. She had students that would go home and take care of their younger siblings when they got off school.

A lot of these kids struggled to read by high school. My wife had grown up nearby and had been friends with someone who played for the NBA for a short while. She tried to tutor him with not very good results. He was in college for a bit but had been pushed along because of his low staring position. So ya, I think the damage is done by college.

She did have one friend that made it out but his mom was a school teacher and very involved in his education.


My hometown has a state mental health facility and a lot of resources for developmentally disabled people that have grown up around that. For a time, my brother-in-law managed a sheltered work facility. He often said that the number one risk factor for developmental disability is poverty.


We do. It’s called the GI Bill and it works wonders.


The trouble is that’s a third rail topic. You won’t find many people on the left saying the answer to diversity problems, violence, crime, education, opportunity and even health begins with responsible parents. To me it’s pretty obvious, they’re the biggest influence on any child, they have far more control over their own child than anyone else does and there’s few people that are successful without having parents heavily involved.

So how does government make better parents?


The first question I have to ask is, do 44% of jobs in the US require a further education degree?

We have graduates manning checkouts in the UK. And while there’s nothing at all wrong with education for the sake of education, I wonder if they now wish they’d left high school and become an apprentice plumber instead of a Bachelor of Media Studies or whatever.


Invest in education, social care, health care and public health, and join those services up in a way that provides meaningful support to families to give them the best chance of being the parents their kids deserve. A family living six people to a bedroom where one parent has two jobs and the other three jobs isn’t a family where realising their potential is easy.


That’s an option for some, sure. Not everyone should have to risk their life or potentially take the lives of others for a college education.


One thing I forgot to add to the definition, and ties into what @RonnieM is saying in his post here is that children have a much more stable environment with two loving parents raising them. I don’t recall if he says a mom and a dad specifically or just two folks that love them but he does state children need good male and female role models.
And that instead of telling women “you don’t need a man” and to raise a child (or children) as a single mom we as a society should tell men “if you have a child then you have an obligation and a duty, see to it.” It’s not telling women they’re incapable of raising children alone - they obviously can and yes, in some cases it’s better the father not to be there. It’s incumbent on men and women to make better choices when children are involved.


That’s the thing about an opportunity. It’s there for those that want it.


You’ll actually find quite a few if you talk to educators.


It’s not at all a third rail topic. It’s directly tied in to discussions around investing in communities, infrastructure, health care, and the UBI debate and it comes up all the time.


How does government make better parents when there’s not that much government money to go around? Most nations are deficit spending and tax rates are topping out at 50%+ already. The answer can’t be a magic money tree. Government has to play the cards they have. Spend more might not be an option.


Just to answer that point quickly - the data for kids raised by same-sex parents says their emotional, social and educational outcomes are the same as those raised by heterosexual couples.


I think we’ve had this conversation a few times before :slight_smile:

The same money can be spent with different priorities. I would choose to prioritise these sorts of initiative over, for example in the UK context, Trident.

There’s also a lot to be gained by joining things up, and spending money in preventative health to save money in the longer term … but needs a long-term, front-loaded commitment.


Yeah, I don’t doubt that at all. But his statements were more towards a man and a woman having a kid and then male abandoning them, not that same sex parents can’t have just as much of an impact.
Two loving parents - whether they’re straight or same sex - is much better overall for the child than just one parent or two parents that hate each other.


I wonder if folks realize that the Veteran’s Administration, HMOs, and Medicare are all forms of socialized medicine? Because they are all sub-systems in larger systems, they are easy prey to be drained of money under the cover of “cost-saving”.

(If they were really saving costs a dose of Tylenol would not cost $45.00.)