Options

White liberals and black schools

123457»

Posts

  • Options
    CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    So, in my school there were maybe 1~2 black kids. There were also a few Vietnamese kids bussed in from northern Port Arthur, and a few Filipinos and Indians hanging about. Nowadays, there are a lot of hispanics living there. The white families have flighted out west toward Winnie and Fanette or far north into Jasper. There was some movement east, but that was all curtailed by the various hurricanes.

    I love how this reads like people fleeing genocide instead of the horrors of multiracialism. People suck.

    Cervetus on
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    A college degree isn't worth near as much as it used to be, but these days if you don't have one you're going to have a pretty hard time getting your foot in the door to any kind of job that doesn't involve manual labor or operating heavy equipment.

    Not that there's anything wrong with those kinds of jobs, of course.

    Not really, getting your foot in the door at an office is pretty ridiculously easy. It's cliche but starting out in the front office or the mail room for a company that promotes from within can net you a pretty decent job if you don't mind cubicle life.

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    A college degree isn't worth near as much as it used to be, but these days if you don't have one you're going to have a pretty hard time getting your foot in the door to any kind of job that doesn't involve manual labor or operating heavy equipment.

    Not that there's anything wrong with those kinds of jobs, of course.

    I'm not so sure about that. I don't have a degree and I've had no problem landing jobs even over people with degrees. I work in IT. One of my friends works in graphic design and he doesn't have a degree either. I guess installing new servers and mucking around with switches qualifies as manual labor though. I also know a lot of people in print that don't have a degree.

    There are plenty of jobs you can qualify for that are very good and pay well that don't require a degree. Now will a degree help, yes. However the first thing they are going to look at is prior experience and some sort of demonstration that you can actually do the work, that matters far more than having a degree.

    Now sure there are a ton office jobs that require putting out water for meetings, editing documents, answering phone calls, and coordinating posters that require a degree and later lead up the social ladder. And there are some fields in science, medicine, law, where it's mandatory you have a good formal education, but not having a degree doesn't doom you to manual labor and flipping burgers.

    nstf on
  • Options
    GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Cervetus wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    So, in my school there were maybe 1~2 black kids. There were also a few Vietnamese kids bussed in from northern Port Arthur, and a few Filipinos and Indians hanging about. Nowadays, there are a lot of hispanics living there. The white families have flighted out west toward Winnie and Fanette or far north into Jasper. There was some movement east, but that was all curtailed by the various hurricanes.

    I love how this reads like people fleeing genocide instead of the horrors of multiracialism. People suck.

    White/rich flight is a strange phenominon. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a lot of ways. People, being concerned that the "undesireables" are going to drive down property prices, take all their money out of one location and then move it (and themselves) to a new location. Suddenly, the new location is quite prosperous and the old location goes to pot. Well... no shit. The people that really get fucked over are the people looking for a better life and wanting to jump from one socioeconomic strata to the next... they say, "hey, this location has a lot of money, good schools, nice property... let's move there" and as soon as they get there, ready to partake in all the wonderful opportunities they were hoping for, they get the damn rug pulled out from under them by all their new neighbors.

    I'm not quite sure how to solve the problem beyond telling people to stop being such pussies.

    GungHo on
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    So, in my school there were maybe 1~2 black kids. There were also a few Vietnamese kids bussed in from northern Port Arthur, and a few Filipinos and Indians hanging about. Nowadays, there are a lot of hispanics living there. The white families have flighted out west toward Winnie and Fanette or far north into Jasper. There was some movement east, but that was all curtailed by the various hurricanes.

    I love how this reads like people fleeing genocide instead of the horrors of multiracialism. People suck.

    White/rich flight is a strange phenominon. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a lot of ways. People, being concerned that the "undesireables" are going to drive down property prices, take all their money out of one location and then move it (and themselves) to a new location. Suddenly, the new location is quite prosperous and the old location goes to pot. Well... no shit. The people that really get fucked over are the people looking for a better life and wanting to jump from one socioeconomic strata to the next... they say, "hey, this location has a lot of money, good schools, nice property... let's move there" and as soon as they get there, ready to partake in all the wonderful opportunities they were hoping for, they get the damn rug pulled out from under them by all their new neighbors.

    I'm not quite sure how to solve the problem beyond telling people to stop being such pussies.

    I live that.

    My home was doing well, gaining value in parity with the development on the other side of the major cross street. It was mostly owners who lived there, and the houses were kept in good shape. There were monthly neighborhood watch meetings and we had a good police presence.

    Then a low-income development was put up next to my home. Values no longer rose as quickly in my set of streets, but continued to do well three blocks away. A string of car and home break-ins (the first in the area's 15 year life) caused owners to vacate, renters to move in and then it all went to hell.

    It might be self-fulfilling, but part of that is due to the realities. Those with mobility know it will fulfill at some point, so they leave first to get the biggest bang for their buck.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    I live that.

    My home was doing well, gaining value in parity with the development on the other side of the major cross street. It was mostly owners who lived there, and the houses were kept in good shape. There were monthly neighborhood watch meetings and we had a good police presence.

    Then a low-income development was put up next to my home. Values no longer rose as quickly in my set of streets, but continued to do well three blocks away. A string of car and home break-ins (the first in the area's 15 year life) caused owners to vacate, renters to move in and then it all went to hell.

    It might be self-fulfilling, but part of that is due to the realities. Those with mobility know it will fulfill at some point, so they leave first to get the biggest bang for their buck.
    The solution to that might be what's called inclusionary zoning- rather than allowing development that is all low-income, you encourage the inclusion of individual lower-income units in a more expensive development. Tax breaks and allowing increased density provides a carrot for developers.

    Any development with the term "low-income" attached to it tends to be disastrous for property values in middle class neighborhoods.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    I live that.

    My home was doing well, gaining value in parity with the development on the other side of the major cross street. It was mostly owners who lived there, and the houses were kept in good shape. There were monthly neighborhood watch meetings and we had a good police presence.

    Then a low-income development was put up next to my home. Values no longer rose as quickly in my set of streets, but continued to do well three blocks away. A string of car and home break-ins (the first in the area's 15 year life) caused owners to vacate, renters to move in and then it all went to hell.

    It might be self-fulfilling, but part of that is due to the realities. Those with mobility know it will fulfill at some point, so they leave first to get the biggest bang for their buck.
    The solution to that might be what's called inclusionary zoning- rather than allowing development that is all low-income, you encourage the inclusion of individual lower-income units in a more expensive development. Tax breaks and allowing increased density provides a carrot for developers.

    Any development with the term "low-income" attached to it tends to be disastrous for property values in middle class neighborhoods.

    I want to say that California law dictates so much low-income for every area that's developed.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The solution to that might be what's called inclusionary zoning- rather than allowing development that is all low-income, you encourage the inclusion of individual lower-income units in a more expensive development. Tax breaks and allowing increased density provides a carrot for developers.

    Any development with the term "low-income" attached to it tends to be disastrous for property values in middle class neighborhoods.

    I want to say that California law dictates so much low-income for every area that's developed.
    I'm guessing, but what it probably requires is that each city or county or whatever has a certain amount of low income housing. Which leads to what you described- a low income development dropped into a middle class neighborhood, and bringing in crime and reducing property values.

    Inclusionary zoning involves basically sprinkling low income units throughout new development. This better integrates low-income people into the rest of the area and prevents the creation of blocs of poor people. The avoids the creation of a critical mass of dysfunction.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    I live that.

    My home was doing well, gaining value in parity with the development on the other side of the major cross street. It was mostly owners who lived there, and the houses were kept in good shape. There were monthly neighborhood watch meetings and we had a good police presence.

    Then a low-income development was put up next to my home. Values no longer rose as quickly in my set of streets, but continued to do well three blocks away. A string of car and home break-ins (the first in the area's 15 year life) caused owners to vacate, renters to move in and then it all went to hell.

    It might be self-fulfilling, but part of that is due to the realities. Those with mobility know it will fulfill at some point, so they leave first to get the biggest bang for their buck.
    The solution to that might be what's called inclusionary zoning- rather than allowing development that is all low-income, you encourage the inclusion of individual lower-income units in a more expensive development. Tax breaks and allowing increased density provides a carrot for developers.

    Any development with the term "low-income" attached to it tends to be disastrous for property values in middle class neighborhoods.

    That is a pretty good idea. If I remember rightly that is how the governments back home (NZ) responsible for state or city provided housing used to (up till the 1980s) try and organise placement of housing. Then the neo liberal reformists sold off all the good housing in the good areas of cities at market rates and ghettoised those requiring such housing in large suburbs.

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    What we got was a 200+ unit low-income apartment complex in the middle of a middle-class neighborhood. Zones that didn't border it probably increased 25% faster. Streets like mine, which were a direct walking line between the complex and the Middle/High School slowed the most.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    What we got was a 200+ unit low-income apartment complex in the middle of a middle-class neighborhood. Zones that didn't border it probably increased 25% faster. Streets like mine, which were a direct walking line between the complex and the Middle/High School slowed the most.
    Yeah, that was one of the dumbest approaches to zoning in a couple of generations. It basically made sure that lower-income people would be segregated from the rest of the area, leading to a reinforcement of social pathologies that plague poor neighborhoods.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    SipexSipex Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    What's this thread about now? I read the parts where the OP asked questions, everyone jumped to assumptions about him then he went off and prooved those assumptions anyways.

    Kind of glad I actually missed this, I would've stood up for him until he opened his mouth and proved you all right, making me look stupid in the process.

    Zoning looks like the topic. How do you get around the problem that low-income people are segregated by living areas? I mean, it's true, people with lower income tend to gravitate to the same areas since the housing is cheaper but at the same time this re-enforces the stigmas. You can't just shove them into one section of the city because then it's 'the ghettos' but throwing a low income area in the middle of a higher income area just creates animosity.

    If low income housing didn't tend to result in crappy landlord maintenance all the time it might help improve the situation a bit.

    Sipex on
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    What's this thread about now? I read the parts where the OP asked questions, everyone jumped to assumptions about him then he went off and prooved those assumptions anyways.

    Kind of glad I actually missed this, I would've stood up for him until he opened his mouth and proved you all right, making me look stupid in the process.

    Zoning looks like the topic. How do you get around the problem that low-income people are segregated by living areas? I mean, it's true, people with lower income tend to gravitate to the same areas since the housing is cheaper but at the same time this re-enforces the stigmas. You can't just shove them into one section of the city because then it's 'the ghettos' but throwing a low income area in the middle of a higher income area just creates animosity.

    If low income housing didn't tend to result in crappy landlord maintenance all the time it might help improve the situation a bit.

    The solution is tough because the problem is big. Low income areas can be good, if the community and culture support it being good. When crime is tolerated, single-parents are the norm and people prize "not-snitching" above holding standards, you're going to have ghettos.

    ANECDOTE: the kids that walk up and down my street on their way to school can be divided into two camps:

    CAMP A: Quiet, neat clothes, walks either alone or with friends, stays on sidewalks, speaks in conversational tones.

    CAMP B: Loud, droopy clothes, walks in large groups in the middle of the street, conversation is peppered with variations of "fuck" that can be heard from 5 houses away.

    You see a kid from Camp A, his/her parents live in the housing tract, either as owners or renters. You see a kid from Camp B, he/she lives in the low-income apartments. I'd say this is about 95% accurate irrespective of race.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    anonymityanonymity __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    What's this thread about now? I read the parts where the OP asked questions, everyone jumped to assumptions about him then he went off and prooved those assumptions anyways.

    Kind of glad I actually missed this, I would've stood up for him until he opened his mouth and proved you all right, making me look stupid in the process.

    Zoning looks like the topic. How do you get around the problem that low-income people are segregated by living areas? I mean, it's true, people with lower income tend to gravitate to the same areas since the housing is cheaper but at the same time this re-enforces the stigmas. You can't just shove them into one section of the city because then it's 'the ghettos' but throwing a low income area in the middle of a higher income area just creates animosity.

    If low income housing didn't tend to result in crappy landlord maintenance all the time it might help improve the situation a bit.

    The solution is tough because the problem is big. Low income areas can be good, if the community and culture support it being good. When crime is tolerated, single-parents are the norm and people prize "not-snitching" above holding standards, you're going to have ghettos.

    ANECDOTE: the kids that walk up and down my street on their way to school can be divided into two camps:

    CAMP A: Quiet, neat clothes, walks either alone or with friends, stays on sidewalks, speaks in conversational tones.

    CAMP B: Loud, droopy clothes, walks in large groups in the middle of the street, conversation is peppered with variations of "fuck" that can be heard from 5 houses away.

    You see a kid from Camp A, his/her parents live in the housing tract, either as owners or renters. You see a kid from Camp B, he/she lives in the low-income apartments. I'd say this is about 95% accurate irrespective of race.

    Clearly, the solution is to break up the old manor houses into as many condos as possible (probably three).

    anonymity on
Sign In or Register to comment.