Life in the US

[SneaksieDave]

Damn, I was looking for something I read about a month ago, but can't find it. It had a bunch of healthcare testimonials from people without health insurance. The main post or article or whatever it was, was from a woman who went into the hospital for ... erm, something... and was billed around $31,000. She flipped out and got some consumer's group or somesuch to help her do a bunch of research. The breakdown of hospital vs. actual costs was insane. Examples were (these are vague guess-approximations, sorry) $350 for ibuprofen that was $7 at the store; $2 worth of bandaging for which they charged $900, and glucose drip which was about $4 online, for which she was charge $1900 or something ridiculous.

 

There's a lot of really bad shit going on in healthcare and pharma, and the closer you are to it, the more visible it is (a very minor part of the reason I didn't pursue it after my degree). Companies like Merck develop some drug like Losartan and then go on to charge close to $100/month for it, years later, to regulate blood pressure of a huge portion of the country. There's soooo much money being exchanged there. Yes, it's their product and they own it, but ffs there is pretty much no regulation for consumers' sake. This is part of the reason a friend of mine who works there gets big bonuses and $10,000 raises, I guess, they just have our money to burn. The same friend tells me that they have a policy of hiring blondes with large boobs. Pretty professional, huh?

 

Prices start off too high (for artificial reasons), a doctor screws up or doesn't do a great job, someone gets upset and sues the doctor or hospital, their medical malpractice insurance goes up, so the rates at the hospital go up, so our insurance rates go up... and the cycle goes on and on. It's a disaster already, and is only getting worse by the day. And no one's doing dick about it.

 

Here's a link of more of the same as above, but it's not the one I wanted. :-/

 

http://health.benabraham.com/html/hospital..._the_unins.html

[Maximius]

Well no, that's bollocks, plenty of people in plenty of countries are poor and hungry and powerless, and a lot worse off than these people, but they don't become hoodlums and murdering thugs. I'll hear no excuses please.

 

You are correct, good point, it is a mixture of extreme poverty (Phillys the worst now I believe in the nation), cultural alienation due to racism and bigotry that keeps Philadelphia deeply segregated, a culture of violence, widespread illiteracy, and yes some bad apples. Its just that over here, all we look at are the bad apples, ignoring the orchards utter disrepair, so forgive me if I lean on those other points. And the killers are not all gangsters or even real hoodlums. Many are just regular kids, who live in a world divorced from the larger one around it, where honor and respect are life and death matters. The police have reported that many of these killings are motivated by utterly stupid things like stolen bicycles and girlfriends. It doesnt help that hi tech pistols and Aks are all around as well, the ease of access to such things is incredible but treated as just a fact of life.

 

And what better way to address poverty than reduce the number of future people affected by it?

 

Its also a question of the society you want to live in. We could just roam the streets shooting the homeless in the head too, or gassing the mentally ill. But is that the world you want to inhabit? When people are more socially secure, they actually tend to have less children over time. This takes place for a variety of reasons, the knowledge that you can put more resources into one child, the desire on the part of potential parents to save their own leisure time, something else that comes along with a more secure social structure. This trend goes along with higher education levels as well. So a nicer, more humane route to lowering populations is to educate them, give them health care, something to live for

 

I'm not a big fan of apologism and blaming the system alone for ills of the individual, either. If one poor, inner city minority (or other!) kid can stay in school and try their best, and ultimately succeed as a result of their efforts (like the rest of us), then there's no reason any other such kid can't at least attempt to do the same. Get a job, or stay at home and help mom cook dinner, or anything besides druggin' and thuggin'. In other words, grow up.

 

There are even (racist) scholarships for many, to help along the way. Those of us ineligible for such discriminatory leg-up bullshit (which only perpetuates the problem) have to depend on merit.

 

Thats simply not true. The few who do make it out of those schools are statistically miracles, the conditions are so bad as to almost guarantee failure. You cannot make generalizations about individuals, as each one is very different inside, with different perspectives on the same things. When you say "like the rest of us" let me ask you did you have rats in your school? Did you have fistfights over the single roll of toilet paper provided by the custodians? Were your textbooks fifteen years out of date? Were their dangerous molds growing in your gym? Was your sports equipment ancient or not there at all? Was the surrounding community covered in trash, filled with rotten homes, homeless winos? Cause for many Philly school kids, thats the reality. That the level playing field. If you want some literature about it Ill find a link to this one book.

 

Apologism is hardly my position, I have worked within this system for a few years now, it doesnt work AT FUCKING ALL, except to keep these people barely straggling along. The support system, welfare, adult services, what ever, are mostly pools for cities to hide cash, for them to keep jobs around, to keep federal bucks floating in, no one really gives a damn about getting shit done or making change. Well, not no one but not enough, thats for sure. There are no jobs in these parts of the city, unemployment is something like 50 percent for some groups, with poor literacy skills and work experience the only options are shit pay exploitation jobs that pay less than poverty and break you mentally and physically. The illusion is that these folks were ever given a real chance, they had a break in the late sixties but since then and especially under Reagan and the scumbags that followed him, the social net is being torn to shreds. And so now we see third world conditions in our cities, rampant illiteracy, almost zero public health system, and on and on.

 

I agree, a few token scholarships are bullshit, there should be no need for scholarships because education is a human right and it should be equally and freely available to all, paid for by the taxes raised by citizens. Our schools should be equal and of top quality, at one time our public system was the envy of the industrialized world, now its a fucking travesty.

 

Im bored with blaming the individual, frankly. Its really easy to do, smacks of retard Christian moralizing, and obscures the complexities that give rise to social problems. It has its place in the scheme of things but on a spectrum of influences from the individual to the varieties of social formations, not as the sole point of inquiry.

[OrbWeaver]

Its also a question of the society you want to live in. We could just roam the streets shooting the homeless in the head too, or gassing the mentally ill. But is that the world you want to inhabit?

 

No, that's why I said to reduce the number of future people, not existent people. Reducing the birth rate is a very different thing from eradicating living humans (although the Scared Idiots and Moral Fascists who seem to be prevalent these days don't count as human in my book, they can all be gassed as far as I am concerned).

 

There is an interesting theory I have seen mentioned several times that the Roe vs Wade decision that legalised abortion in the US was followed by a drop in crime rates after a period of time, which was attributed to the first wave of abortions removing the cohort of children who would otherwise have become criminals. If this is true, then it would be foolish not to try and take advantage of the effect to reduce crime still further.

[SneaksieDave]

Thats simply not true. The few who do make it out of those schools are statistically miracles, the conditions are so bad as to almost guarantee failure. You cannot make generalizations about individuals, as each one is very different inside, with different perspectives on the same things.

I'm only saying that if any can do it, there's no real reason any other shouldn't also be at least able and willing to try to do the same. Do you hold the opinion that almost nothing good comes out of the people in Philly? I'm sure the answer is, of course not. There are plenty of good people growing up, living, and dying there. My point is, why are they different from the guy next door who becomes a gang banger? Same conditions, different choice of response to the big bad environment.

 

When you say "like the rest of us" let me ask you did you have rats in your school? Did you have fistfights over the single roll of toilet paper provided by the custodians? Were your textbooks fifteen years out of date? Were their dangerous molds growing in your gym? Was your sports equipment ancient or not there at all? Was the surrounding community covered in trash, filled with rotten homes, homeless winos? Cause for many Philly school kids, thats the reality. That the level playing field. If you want some literature about it Ill find a link to this one book.

I've got a couple of yesses on that list, but of course not the full lot. If the question is, did I grow up in some affluent area with a comfortable life, etc., let me assure you the answer is absolutely no. That's part of the reason this shit bothers me - I had a rough childhood, we were dirt poor, mom with 2 or 3 jobs and divorced, being sued by the hospital for unpaid medical bills as they tried to take our run-down house from us, etc. (more personal stuff), and you know what I did? I used my brain in school, and I did my homework instead of doing drugs and 'hangin out' like a derelict, and I went on to college, and graduated with a bachelor of science. I'm sure there are kids from Philly who've done the same. So what about the rest? Are they 'born criminals'? Of course not. But what is it about them that prevents them from rising above their adversity?

 

At the same time, running all of those examples out there, what does that do besides put full blame on the environment? What about the inhabitants? Do residents want it to be better? Then they need to do something about it. "It takes money!" No, it doesn't. It doesn't take money for some caring parents in the neighborhood to do something good for their children by cleaning their parks, or ball courts. It doesn't take money to form a community council and meet with city hall (who does have the money) about important issues in the neighborhood. No one really wants to be bothered, but their situation is dire; they must. Basically what I'm saying is, the kids growing up in that squalor are doing so in part because their parents let them grow up in it. Someone (the adults, mostly) needs to do something about the situation to break the cycle. There are of course other places where the situation was bad but residents care and lift a hand to do something about it, rather than just gettin fat watching TV and bitching while the kids go deal drugs.

 

I've seen stories where some particular strong, leadership types have risen to the challenge. IIRC, there was an oldish lady a few years back who'd had enough and started some 'take back the neighborhood' group, where they'd do citizen patrols of the streets and keep drug dealers away. The cities need more people like that, people willing to put their effort into their situation. Was she eventually shot? I can't remember.

 

Apologism is hardly my position, I have worked within this system for a few years now, it doesnt work AT FUCKING ALL, except to keep these people barely straggling along.

To quickly clarify, I wasn't talking about you.

 

It of course would be very hard work to turn Philly around. To repeat, it would be very hard work to turn Philly around. The key is, the people need to be willing to do the work necessary, or it's not going to get better. I don't know what percentage are, but it's apparently not enough to fix the situation at this time.

 

Im bored with blaming the individual, frankly.

Another thing I'd like to clarify; I don't fully blame the individual. The situation sucks, there's no denying it. It's the city I hate, not people (except for those earning it). But the residents are going to need to face one thing and make a choice: the government is NOT going to help, or at least not quickly. There is unlimited power in numbers. If they want to start to improve their situation, to make a better life for themselves and their children, they need to organize and work hard.

 

Are they going to?

 

...

 

Edit: Anyway, all the above is just a bunch of blah blah to try and make the point on a grey topic where no one and everyone is to blame which revolves around one issue Oddity already summed up:

plenty of people in plenty of countries are poor and hungry and powerless, and a lot worse off than these people, but they don't become hoodlums and murdering thugs.

That's it. The people there (and elsewhere) are in dire situations. But it comes down to what they decide to do about it.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

honor and respect are life and death matters. The police have reported that many of these killings are motivated by utterly stupid things like stolen bicycles and girlfriends. \

Well then it seems rather normal, as long as there's not too many random attacks. Shakespearean.

[Maximius]

I'm only saying that if any can do it, there's no real reason any other shouldn't also be at least able and willing to try to do the same. Do you hold the opinion that almost nothing good comes out of the people in Philly? I'm sure the answer is, of course not. There are plenty of good people growing up, living, and dying there. My point is, why are they different from the guy next door who becomes a gang banger? Same conditions, different choice of response to the big bad environment.

 

That is a good question. No one here really talks to or about them, they just plaster their angry faces up on the news as villain of the minute. I know this much, they are overwhelmingly from poor households and run down neighborhoods. The schools are as I've already described. Many come from homes torn apart by violence, drugs, the usual stuff.

 

But not all. Some are "good" kids, who fall into the gangster culture cause their peers are working on them, to gain acceptance, whatever, safety on dangerous streets. Just the presence of a few guns in a neighborhood seems to me to be a kind of mini arms race that demands a response, namely buying one yourself. There is a kind of feedback loop at work. Im sure the original presence of the guns was for drugs and such, but now they are a real and symbolic power item and have become mundane. A friend from West Philly put it this way "No one fist fights anymore."

 

We can root out certain individuals but given the conditions there will be a group that emerges that engages in such things. Violence follows poverty, although oDDIty has a point about some communities who dont respond this way, you have to look at each case indivdiidually. Here, the poverty met up with drug business and helped to spawn a toxic street culture that has little value for human life. Of course, neither does US culture in general, which is perhaps an influence as well.

 

But the facts remain that if the social conditions were to improve, and the guns were taken the fuckaway, these neighborhoods could improve. No one is trying to give them a chance to heal, they just ignore the problem, racism steps in and declares its just the way it is with some people, or classism, or some other ism that helps people maintain their illusions. When more whitekids from good neighborhoods start getting shot, then real change will start to take place. Maybe.

 

I've got a couple of yesses on that list, but of course not the full lot. If the question is, did I grow up in some affluent area with a comfortable life, etc., let me assure you the answer is absolutely no. That's part of the reason this shit bothers me - I had a rough childhood, we were dirt poor, mom with 2 or 3 jobs and divorced, being sued by the hospital for unpaid medical bills as they tried to take our run-down house from us, etc. (more personal stuff), and you know what I did? I used my brain in school, and I did my homework instead of doing drugs and 'hangin out' like a derelict, and I went on to college, and graduated with a bachelor of science. I'm sure there are kids from Philly who've done the same. So what about the rest? Are they 'born criminals'? Of course not. But what is it about them that prevents them from rising above their adversity?

 

Yes, I have a somewhat similar story, projects in my childhood, a divorce that shamed Satan, and I have done well to a degree. But think back, were there any close spotss? Any times you almost fucked up royally? I have a half a million or so to my credit. Its incredible I have made it where I have. But a lot of people I know, good people, didnt, and to say why not is to ignore the fact that people come from very different places, both mentally, physically, and economically. My point is that we should be fostering an environment that gives all a decent shot at a decent life, I think of it as a garden, you can seed a well tilled healthy garden and still get some weeds, no doubt, but a poorly tended garden will definitely give rise to weeds and other ills as well. Why is no one pointing at the crumbling schools,

 

At the same time, running all of those examples out there, what does that do besides put full blame on the environment? What about the inhabitants? Do residents want it to be better? Then they need to do something about it. "It takes money!" No, it doesn't. It doesn't take money for some caring parents in the neighborhood to do something good for their children by cleaning their parks, or ball courts. It doesn't take money to form a community council and meet with city hall (who does have the money) about important issues in the neighborhood. No one really wants to be bothered, but their situation is dire; they must. Basically what I'm saying is, the kids growing up in that squalor are doing so in part because their parents let them grow up in it. Someone (the adults, mostly) needs to do something about the situation to break the cycle. There are of course other places where the situation was bad but residents care and lift a hand to do something about it, rather than just gettin fat watching TV and bitching while the kids go deal drugs.

 

Many residents do, and there are community efforts. But there are big obstacles, distrust of the cops, for good historical reasons and many current ones as well. Some communities clean there streets but the one next door doesnt and the city doesnt really help and so your work is often swallowed up by the general neglect. And the problems simply cannot be solved at the street level, they can be attacked from that angle but its only one. Money, yes money, needs to be spent, on jobs programs that fix up neighborhoods, real work training programs, stuff that uplifts the individual as well as their community. And of course literacy, real schools. Dedicated funding, with strong oversight and control but also with the real freedom to get people involved and keep them there. What exists now is a revolving door gag routine that embitters people and reaps distrust of any and all programs. And believe me, the costs of such programs pale when compared to the costs of widespread ignorance, illiteracy, poverty.

 

 

I've seen stories where some particular strong, leadership types have risen to the challenge. IIRC, there was an oldish lady a few years back who'd had enough and started some 'take back the neighborhood' group, where they'd do citizen patrols of the streets and keep drug dealers away. The cities need more people like that, people willing to put their effort into their situation. Was she eventually shot? I can't remember.

To quickly clarify, I wasn't talking about you.

 

Ok, sorry if Im shrill, its been a rough fucking week. But the leadership routine is old hat too Im afraid. Leaders are great but they cannot move mountains. They need solid support and thats not been coming. And so many of these leaders are mere media darlings for a hot second or two, look, a ray of hope, now on to the sports report. We need social spending, it worked in the past as crappy and unstable as it was, but its been ravaged by the conservative rollback of the last three decades, epitomized by Reagan and Ginrichs Deal on America. We need our tax dollars spent wisely to clean up our streets, and get those that need it the assistance they need to get a start. And it needs to stay in place, so that people have time to change their hearts and minds, to become a member of a community, not a thing that happens overnight. BUt none of this will, its going to get worse, mark my words.

 

 

It of course would be very hard work to turn Philly around. To repeat, it would be very hard work to turn Philly around. The key is, the people need to be willing to do the work necessary, or it's not going to get better. I don't know what percentage are, but it's apparently not enough to fix the situation at this time.

Another thing I'd like to clarify; I don't fully blame the individual. The situation sucks, there's no denying it. It's the city I hate, not people (except for those earning it). But the residents are going to need to face one thing and make a choice: the government is NOT going to help, or at least not quickly. There is unlimited power in numbers. If they want to start to improve their situation, to make a better life for themselves and their children, they need to organize and work hard.

 

Are they going to?

 

 

There is no hope but governmental spending. We need progressive politics with a radical wing, a party that spends our wealth on us, not hands it over to pigs and worms, but thats a pipe dream in this wasteland of ideology and religious thinking. If people were offered real, stable opportunities you would see growth. I agree they need to organize, but that takes a LOT of education, effort, planning, whatever, and no one is stepping up to that challenge. Too many obstacles, racism, classism, pick your poison, for cross cultural organizing. And dont forget, PHilly is as rotten and corrupt as they come, local political elites dont come from bad neighborhoods to save them, they come out of them to sell them out like the whites that came before them did.

 

 

 

 

That's it. The people there (and elsewhere) are in dire situations. But it comes down to what they decide to do about it.

 

And if they have nothing to work with, no social net, no bottom line, those efforts are of little or no use. They are lost, frustrated, and eventually such movements simply die out because the problems are too big. They need real money, real organization, to address. This is not coming forth and we are all going to be the sorrier for it in time. Just one example, the deplorable state of American education, and yet we must compete in a world where the bachelors degree is the norm.

[Gildoran]

A better solution is eugenics.

Even ignoring how it has turned out in the past, I'm against mandatory eugenics. Who gets to decide what genes are worth propagating? Some traits may look inferior yet prove enormously useful in unexpected ways. Consider that Einstein was thought to be retarded as a kid - perhaps a candidate for sterilization under eugenics guidelines. And look at what has happened when even the most diligent humans have applied eugenics to animals ... pure-bred animals tend to have lots of health problems. Additionally, a lack of genetic diversity tends to result in populations with less disease resistance. I think nature/reality does the best job of deciding what genes are effective and what aren't, not some group of self-proclaimed experts.

 

Having said that, I'd be all for offering money to people to get sterilized. A while back, there was a program in the US that offered $1000 to any crack-addicted woman who agreed to undergo sterilization... until the religious people got their hands on it. I guess God wants suffering crack-babies born to mothers who don't care about them.

[Unstoppable]

There is no need to point out that life in the U.S. could be better given all our resources. The problem is corruption in the government coupled with the society we live in. Right now the country is being run by oil, drug, and war.

 

It is a sad day when you see how many americans keep falling prey to over the counter, prescription, and illegal drugs. That coupled with every other abuse epidemic will bring the country down to it's knees. Our leaders aren't doing enough because frankly they just have their pockets stuffed. The ambition to power is the root of the evil itself.

 

There are good things about the U.S.A. despite all the bad. If you can manage to stay away from the bad and work hard perhaps you can make a life for yourself better than the one you already have. To fight amongst ourselves will just lead to more war. The best thing to do is just part ways. With that I will leave and wish you a better tommorow.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

pure-bred animals are largely inferior in survival, but disregarding pure-bred livestock, let's consider dogs. They are highly specialized and more useful than wolf-like animals of the past. If people become more useful it brings two positives: overall society COP goes up permitting to do more stuff like doom3 modding or violin playing and caring for whatever it is people care for like other disadvantaged people, environment, etc, and two, people get a purpose in life which boosts their morale and happiness and keeps them from trouble (trouble like becoming a politician or a businessman or a gangster for example.)

[Gildoran]

pure-bred animals are largely inferior in survival, but disregarding pure-bred livestock, let's consider dogs. They are highly specialized and more useful than wolf-like animals of the past.

Actually, dogs were what I had in mind when I said that pure-breeds have health problems. I would argue that though their appearances are the result of concerted selective breeding, their friendly behavior is inadvertent evolution due to killing aggressive dogs; note that even mutts are perfectly friendly despite not having eugenics directly applied to them - and they're healthier.

 

If people become more useful it brings two positives: overall society COP goes up permitting to do more stuff like doom3 modding or violin playing and caring for whatever it is people care for like other disadvantaged people, environment, etc, and two, people get a purpose in life which boosts their morale and happiness and keeps them from trouble (trouble like becoming a politician or a businessman or a gangster for example.)

I doubt it would have nearly as big an effect as you seem to think it would, and to be honest, I think there are other (less distasteful) social reforms that would have a bigger impact with less risk of being corrupted. Keep in mind it wasn't so long ago that atheists were considered unfit parents.

[Macsen]

The Republic of Ireland is the best place in the world to live at the moment. It's rich, it doesn't do wars, the people are kind, and it's in Europe. So if you want to live somewhere nice, move there. Just don't confuse it with Northern Ireland which isn't so nice.

[SneaksieDave]

Apart from all of the government support and economic funding stuff, which I admittedly don't know any specifics about and is definitely needed,

I know this much, they are overwhelmingly from poor households and run down neighborhoods. The schools are as I've already described. Many come from homes torn apart by violence, drugs, the usual stuff.

My (probably oversimplified, yet still at least somewhat accurate) assumption is that most of the real problem comes down to behavior by socialization. Basically, "I need to hang with my homies to be cool", "I need to do drug X to be cool", "I need to sell drug X, to get green, to get bling, to be cool", "I need to treat the bitches like bitches to be cool", "I need to have a piece to be cool", "I need to belong to a gang to be cool (or stay alive)", "I need to be willing to bust a cap in some punk bitch who crosses my turf", etc, etc. That's part of why I say, stay indoors and help mom cook, or go to the library and do your schoolwork. Do NOT socialize with other already-lost-dirtbags, and you stand a better chance of not becoming one. Sounds simple, but honestly, if kids aren't around trouble, they're not going to get in trouble. If they weren't worried about impressing or looking tough or whatever, and were just normal kids like in areas where that pressure wasn't so high, far fewer would go bad, and that would start a cascade effect. A once bad neighborhood would instead start to look more like a 'normal' neighborhood. That's why it annoys me; to a large extent it is personal choice. I could've hung out with dirtbags (even did at some point - but nothing hardcore) and became one of them. Apparently I made the choice not to, even at a young age. If some inner city kid can stay out of trouble by learning drums or even just watching TV too much, he should.

[OrbWeaver]

The Republic of Ireland is the best place in the world to live at the moment. It's rich, it doesn't do wars, the people are kind, and it's in Europe. So if you want to live somewhere nice, move there. Just don't confuse it with Northern Ireland which isn't so nice.

 

A religious country where abortion is illegal and the education system is run by the Catholic church? No thanks.

[Crispy]

Yeah, I think I'll stick with Australia for now. In the event that we become a totalitarian state, Canada sounds like a decent second option.

[OrbWeaver]

Yeah, I think I'll stick with Australia for now. In the event that we become a totalitarian state

 

As far as I am concerned, any country that outlaws criticism of the government has officially made the leap into totalitarianism.

 

Conclusion: All countries have their problems. There is no point in emigrating unless you live in Iraq or North Korea (and good luck trying to).

[oDDity]

Don't be so fucking melodramaitc. I suppose you're still at that rebellious age, where you're obsessed about people trying to keep you down.

I'm perfectly happy where I am for a start, a town of 10k people with virtually zero crime rate, and everyone says 'hello' in the street.

[Macsen]

A religious country where abortion is illegal and the education system is run by the Catholic church? No thanks.

It's a secular state, unlike Britain. It's also apparently the happiest place in Europe.

 

If you're looking for some perfect country, some tir na nog where the sun is always shining, there's no crime, and the state is atheist and yet utterly benign, you're not going to find it.

[Domarius]

Of course Ireland is a nice, happy place Full of limericks and jokes and songs and leprechauns and stuff. And Irish Pubs.

 

Heh, I remember the comedian Jimoen saying how he fell victim to the stereotype once. He was in a pub here (in Australia) and they were talking about their history and what their grandfathers did etc. And Jimoen was, at length, telling an account given by his grandfather, it was set in the war and it was pretty serious stuff. But Jimoen notices people nearby going "Hang on, someone's tellin a joke here..." - presumably because of his accent... and this big gathering ends up forming around his table eventually. So he had to end up telling a joke in the end. Heheh.

[oDDity]

It's a secular state, unlike Britain. It's also apparently the happiest place in Europe.

Apparently the happiest place in Europe? What the fuck does that actually mean?

I think you've been watching too much Father Ted.

How do they even measure happiness? A laugh-o-meter installed in every house?

[Macsen]

I just remember some survey on the BBC...

 

... ah, here it is: clicky-de-clock

 

I have no experience of living in Ireland so I can't vouch for that. But if I climb to the top of a high mountain here I can see it in the distance and it looks like a pretty nice place.

[oDDity]

Ahh, some halfassed 'quality of life' survey by 'Economist' magazine. That proves it then.

They're just trying to come up with something to fill their pages.

As for low unemployment, maybe, but they're all working in fucking call centres now, which is hardly job satisfaction.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I'd like to live in a 10k city. I probably won't though because what irritates me about most cities is the ubiquitous architectural style: thin-shell concrete boxes with huge window panes and cheesy siding like faux-rocks or faux-wood paneling - this makes it aesthetically hardly any different from my 5M city.

 

And I think the Economist survey is good enough, because it considers the old and the new values, and that's what I care about.

[Macsen]

I have two homes - my weekday home is the nicest place on earth in countryside that looks like Hobbitton full of lovely people but is intensly boring. My weekend home is in an old medieval town of 9k people which isn't boring but that's because you're constantly in a scrap with some drunken chavs.

 

I prefer the second one to tell you the truth.

[oDDity]

Well, as for boring, that's a state of mind. It's up to you to do things to keep your mind occupied, it's not incumbent upon the place or people where you live to entertain you.

By exciting, I'm guessing you mean places to go out on the piss with mates.

[thestemmer]

WARNING: EXTRA LONG (but thoughtful) POST AHEAD

 

I don't normally post on political topics in forums, but seeing as this is a topic that touches me (I'm a student in at college in Boston, but I grew up in Philly, and went to public school there), I feel inclined to say something.

 

Maximus in not exaggerating. Everything he says about the public school system here and the conditions of the neighborhoods they're in is, for the most part, accurate. Gangs, violence, schools that are falling apart, fifteen-year-old text books, the works. I'm pretty sure I remember a globe with the of the Ottoman Empire marked off on it in one of the classrooms. The teachers are, at best, tired and burnt-out, underpaid and extremely cynical about the situation. It's all completely borked.

 

I did survive the public school system, but only for a few reasons. First of all, Philadelphia has a system in which students with good grades can apply to get into more exclusive magnet schools. It's a terrible system that whisks all of the bright minds away and leaves the neighborhood schools to deal with the dregs, but at least it saves those few from being swallowed up my the insanity. I had the luck to get into one of these schools, but I'm sure there were dozens of equally qualified cantidates that could have took my place. It's all a crapshoot.

 

At the magnet schools, you at least have a chance to survive, since the people around you are hand-picked to be good risks for the school. It's a discriminatory system that favors those who come from families with a reasonable level of education and income, and tends to have the side-effect of sorting people by race, but it works, sort of. The magnet schools are much safer, have less problems with drugs and violence, and the level of education sometimes approaches acceptable. They're kept afloat by alumni endowments, which ensures that they don't fall into the same level of disrepair as the other schools.

 

The problem is that for the students going there, this creates the illusion of a working public-education system, when in reality all that has been done is educate small percentage of the students and leave the rest to the wolves. These schools are being supported by private funds, because the government refuses to pony up enough cash to improve the school system as a whole. It's a stop-gap solution, ensuring that the best and brightest can make it out alive while the whole system collapses around them.

 

Meanwhile, out in the suburbs, public schools have more money than they know what to do with. I have a friend who lives out near Allentown, an hour or so drive from Philadelphia, and he went to a public high school that had more money than they knew what to do with. Every time they found themselves sitting on a new mountain of dollar bills, they would just build a new athletic field, or a computer lab. What's the reason for this huge amount of disparity? Well, first of all, the funding for education in this country is tied to property tax values. Property taxes! Can you think of a stupider way to fund education? So the schools in poor areas that need it most get the least money, and the ones in rich areas that need it the least get the most.

 

The government is supposed to help balance the situation by subsidizing schools in poor areas, but it's never enough. Education is a public service, and the money that people put into it doesn't go directly back into their own pockets, so it never gets enough funding. Now, I don't have the amount of scope that some of you people have, so I'm not used to thinking up problems for geopolitical problems, but I think that one thing this country needs is FLAT FUNDING for education. That means that funding for public schools is no longer tied to property values, but instead every school gets the same amount of money per student. The way, if education is underfunded, EVERYBODY knows about it since every person would have to deal with it. That would certainly exert enough political pressure to get the government to fund education at a reasonable level, and it would ultimately improve the school system in this country. It certainly wouldn't solve all of the problems with poverty, violence etc. that we have been discussing, but it would certainly go a long way toward alleviating them.

 

'course, the problem would be to actually get people to swallow the idea that the central government should dole out the money to all of their schools. Given the extreme paranoia of centralized government ANYTHING in this country, I'm not sure I could see it happening without a massive political movement.