Crime and inflation devastating to inner city communities

[togor]

The poor people you are focused on are swindled, cheated and manipulated. You are apparently OK with that. In addition those, people are not where legitimate businesses achieve their profits. It is the hard working middle class that paid attention in school and works their butt off. They love their country and stand for the anthem.

Something your heroes hate.

What nonsense are you reading into people's posts now? You're just making stuff up to be argumentative.

Being poor, having fewer material resources in this world, means a more precarious existence.

How did one comedian put it? If you have money, people will give you more of it. If you don't, people will demand more of it from you. That's kind of how it is in a nutshell, right?

[blackhawknj]

Chain stores, big boxes, have found they are subject to too much pilferage, shop lifting, vandalism to locate in such areas. Then there is the bodega clerk in the Bronx who defended himself against an assailant-and he was locked up on $500,000 bail. It was noted in the Korean groceries there would be one person behind the counter, one stocking the shelves-and one for security. The actor J.J. Walker said "Crime causes poverty."

[Allen]

The actor J.J. Walker said "Crime causes poverty."

"Dy-no-mite!"

[lyman]

You're arguing that the poor aren't separated from what money they have?

I mean, that's why they're poor, right? Because they can't accumulate wealth? Can't get the down payment, so they have to pay rent, and build equity for the landlord?

I'm not arguing at all,

I've worked in the hood, and have a good friend that has too,

what I am saying, not arguing, is that you have not a clue what you are talking about,

some chat forum info is about as useless and your post,

[lyman]

Chain stores, big boxes, have found they are subject to too much pilferage, shop lifting, vandalism to locate in such areas. Then there is the bodega clerk in the Bronx who defended himself against an assailant-and he was locked up on $500,000 bail. It was noted in the Korean groceries there would be one person behind the counter, one stocking the shelves-and one for security. The actor J.J. Walker said "Crime causes poverty."

I was fortunate, due to my background, I turned one shrink pit into a much better store, for the people that shopped there and the company

then , I was promoted to another,, did the same, and then, I was told I was a Victim of my success and promoted to another shrink pit,

that last one I ran was a smaller format location (50K Sq Ft) that did more business than most that were double or triple,
it was sandwiched between 2 urban Universities,
theft was high, but sales were higher, so it made more money 11 months of the year than several other stores combined, then the month it was inventoried, the profits were still greater than the shrink,,

corporate and divisional changes meant that I did not have the backing I did at the other 2, so I ended up leaving the company and moving on to another (and started my own)

meanwhile a few locals opened a nice high end local supermarket in the hood, all the frills and amenity's,
and it lasted a couple years, then closed,

why? the demographics, despite what the owners and media said, did not give a sh!t about fancy stuff, they wanted the basics and cheap,
not to mention the help was hard to find, and hard to keep productive,
and the locals also stole them blind, (there is a way to curb the theft, but it takes a company with balls and a team that will prosecute)

the grocery business is called a penny business, because the profit is believed to be penny's on the dollar,
that is not exactly true if you know what you are doing, it is more like a nickel, maybe a dime, to the dollar total store, ( each dept has it's own profit structure, Frozen Foods are generally 40% plus, Deli 10%. etc etc and many hours are non productive, as far as generating a profit, like Cashiers etc, they provide a service but not a profit stream)


meanwhile the local corner stores, and the dollar stores, offer a product in small quantities at a high profit margin,
enough to cover expenses and make a profit,

many local corner stores, at least in this area, have been caught forging or mis using EBT, or accepting stolen goods for pennies on the dollar ,

need beer or wine, sure, we will ring it up as a bag of chicken legs on your ECT card at a higher price than you can buy for cash, and move on,

or if you stole 10 cans of ant and roach spray, keep one, give us the 9 and here is a 6 pack,


happens a lot

[togor]

I'm not arguing at all,

I've worked in the hood, and have a good friend that has too,

what I am saying, not arguing, is that you have not a clue what you are talking about,

some chat forum info is about as useless and your post,

Too bad you didn't read it, because the quote is right.

I could come up with so many examples of how ordinary stuff is harder if you're poor. But you don't want to see that side of it so why bother.

The poor are not "America's heroes", but neither are they "America's losers" who automatically get what's coming to them.

In my experience, it's WAAAY more complicated than that.

Drugs,

Mental Illness,

Criminal Records,

All of the Above.

But my point was, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, that the less money you have, the worse your negotiating position when it comes to buying the stuff you need.

You want examples? Just say so.

- - - Updated - - -

.....
Bottom line, poor people are not necessarily stupid as togor suggests.

Never did I suggest that. So clean your computer screen, glasses, or both.

Or are you looking for arguments?

[lyman]

Too bad you didn't read it, because the quote is right.

I could come up with so many examples of how ordinary stuff is harder if you're poor. But you don't want to see that side of it so why bother.

The poor are not "America's heroes", but neither are they "America's losers" who automatically get what's coming to them.

In my experience, it's WAAAY more complicated than that.

Drugs,

Mental Illness,

Criminal Records,

All of the Above.

But my point was, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, that the less money you have, the worse your negotiating position when it comes to buying the stuff you need.

You want examples? Just say so.

- - - Updated - - -



Never did I suggest that. So clean your computer screen, glasses, or both.

Or are you looking for arguments?

you may not have said the poor are stupid, but you just said they have drugs/mental/criminal issues,



and then you state that it is way more complicated,


contradict yourself, almost daily,

[togor]

you may not have said the poor are stupid, but you just said they have drugs/mental/criminal issues,



and then you state that it is way more complicated,


contradict yourself, almost daily,

Come on now...

I list some causes of poverty. Indisputably

Nothing in the post implied these are the ONLY causes of poverty.

Instead of attacking me for stuff you READ IN, how about reading what I actually wrote, and telling me what I have wrong. If there's nothing out of place, then what are you arguing?

Here's an example of how having money saves money.

We buy LP to help heat the house in winter, also run the stove, water heater. Company offers us a fixed price contract, with an enrollment fee. The contract is a hedge against when the price goes up in winter. If you prepay, they cut the price about another 15%. If you can't prepay, then you don't get the extra savings but you're in the fixed price program. If you can't afford the enrollment fee, that winter fill at the spot price might add 20% to the cost of the gas against the program.

So same amount of LP, but if you have money, you can get it for SIGNIFICANTLY less. Something for politicians to fix? Heck no, just how it is. But another thing to remember if anyone is wondering how come poor folks aren't doing a better job of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or whatever.

A buddy runs painting jobs in the Phoenix area. He is always hiring, losing, hiring painters. When Covid hit and the free money came from the government, he lost a bunch of guys. For a month or two of government money? Heck yes. They're living in the moment. Was he bashing them for this? No. Just how it is.

We've all seen it.

If you want to quote something I wrote, explain how I have it wrong, glad to learn. But be open to possibility of simple misinterpretation.

[lyman]

you continue to insist that someone is arguing,

but that would be only,


you flip flop on your statements more than anyone on this board,


you do realize the more you post this stuff the more folks here ignore you , correct?

even your inconsistencies are inconsistent,

[lyman]

you continue to insist that someone is arguing,

but that would be only you

you flip flop on your statements more than anyone on this board,


you do realize the more you post this stuff the more folks here ignore you , correct?

even your inconsistencies are inconsistent,

[one shot]

Hub caps and cat converters are considerably cheaper.

[dryheat]

Title loans. How are they even a thing? Who actually does that? If I was throwing money away on rent like some folks, I couldn't sleep at night. I know a guy and him and I are complete opposites; I worked at one job for thirty years and he's had thirty different jobs. If they raise his rent another fifty bucks he will be out on the street. Once poverty starts it just rolls downhill. Can everyone be smart? Nope, the numbers don't work that way.

[Vern Humphrey]

Title loans. How are they even a thing? Who actually does that? If I was throwing money away on rent like some folks, I couldn't sleep at night. I know a guy and him and I are complete opposites; I worked at one job for thirty years and he's had thirty different jobs. If they raise his rent another fifty bucks he will be out on the street. Once poverty starts it just rolls downhill. Can everyone be smart? Nope, the numbers don't work that way.

Actually, they CAN be smart -- there are just so many people telling them, "You can't win. You can't compete. You need Democrats to protect you."

And of course, the Public School system has failed, so they can't read or write -- and that's pretty much a requirement for any job.

[blackhawknj]

The Public School systems fail because too many parents are using it as a daycare center. Then there's all the teenage girls whose ambition is to become a welfare mother at 15 or 16. As William Raspberry said "It emancipates them and makes them eligible for welfare and other benefits in their own name."

[Vern Humphrey]

The Public School systems fail because too many parents are using it as a daycare center. Then there's all the teenage girls whose ambition is to become a welfare mother at 15 or 16. As William Raspberry said "It emancipates them and makes them eligible for welfare and other benefits in their own name."

Let's examine the logic of that. If it's the parents' fault, the schools can't do anything about that. It means the schools CAN'T succeed.

If the schools CAN'T succeed, why the hell are we pumping money into the system? Let's close the schools and save all that money.

On the other hand, if we REALLY wanted to educate the children, we would break the strangle hold the NEA has on the schools. We would distinguish between Public Schools (bricks and mortar and public employees) and Public Education -- actually TEACHING the children. We would put our money into EDUCATION and to hell with the schools and the system.



The Three-Paper Solution


This paper addresses the issue of education in America. It is based on four principles:

? We, the public, should pay for the education of each child in the nation.

? If we pay for a child?s education, the child should get an education -- one commensurate with the amount we pay (which is to say, a world-class education).

? There should be no disparity among children, either in what we pay, or the quality education they receive.

? America works best when we have free and open competition among suppliers -- and that applies to suppliers of education as much as to any other thing.

The Three-Paper Solution is a framework for applying these four principles. In practice, it is quite simple -- first of all, get three sheets of blank paper:

On the first sheet: write the standards which you feel every school should meet. If you want a school to serve a hot lunch, write it down, and set standards so we can determine if the school is meeting the requirement. Similarly, if you want integrated schools, write standards for integration. Continue until you feel you have described all the standards a publicly-funded school should meet.

When writing, remember -- all schools which receive public funds will have to meet your requirements, not just ?public schools? and not just ?private schools receiving public funds.? Schools which cannot meet your standards -- whether public or private -- will not be eligible to receive public funding. Also remember -- these will be the only public funds the school receives.

On the second sheet: write the standards which you feel every student should meet. Specify how well children should read at the end of each grade. Set standards for electives as well as mandatory subjects -- for example, if a school has a course in carpentry or automotive repair, set standards for courses in those subjects.

Write your standards as objective, measurable standards. Tell what the students must do to prove the standards have been met.

On the third sheet: list those things for which you are willing to pay extra and set a price tag beside them. A good example might be an apprentice level shop-training program, or a school deep in the Inner City.


How it works: any agency or business can open a school and receive ninety percent of the per-pupil share of the state?s educational expenditures for each pupil the school attracts. This is the only source of public funding any school will receive; public, private non-profit, or private for-profit. The consumer ? that is, the parents ? choose the school their child attends, and schools compete for students.

But won?t that drive the public schools out of business?

Only if you assume the public schools cannot compete in an open market -- a market in which the same standards are applied to all schools. Schools which cannot attract enough children will go out of business -- and they should go out of business. Any school -- public, private non-profit, or private for-profit, which can attract enough children will have enough funding to continue operations.

Won?t poor children suffer?

No. Poor children will be better off under this plan than under the present ?public school? system, because they will be able to attend any school they wish, just as the children of more affluent parents can.

What about children trapped in a declining school as other children leave?

No one will be ?trapped? in a declining school. All children will have the same opportunity to move. Children whose parents do not move them at first can chose to move them later, at any time ? because their parents will have the same funding the other children?s parents had.

Would parents be allowed to supplement the public funds?

Of course! Look at it this way -- I open a school that gets $5,000 of public funds per child (the national average is closer to twice that, but we?ll use $5,000 in this example), and the parents kick in an extra $10,000 per child. I successfully recruit nine affluent children. But in your First Sheet of paper, you said that to receive public funds I have to have at least 10% poor minority enrollment. So now I have to recruit a poor minority child, or lose $45,000 in public funding.

How do I do that if the poor parents can?t afford to pay the extra $10,000?

I give the child a $10,000 scholarship, of course -- and the public funds kick in another $5,000 for that child. So for a $10,000 scholarship, I get $50,000 in public funds.

Who loses?

Not me -- I qualify for $50,000 in public funds in return for a $10,000 scholarship.

Not the public -- they?re paying $5,000 per child, just as they would at any other school.

Not the students -- they?re attending a first-class school (and if it weren?t first class, their parents wouldn?t be willing to kick in an extra $10,000 per pupil).

Not the poor minority students -- they?re getting the same first-class education and making all the connections the children of the affluent are making, and it isn?t costing them a cent.

Nobody loses, everybody wins.

But wouldn?t the private schools ?cherry pick? -- take the best students and leave the problem students for the public schools?

Of course not! After all, you?re the one writing the rules. If you?re smart enough to figure they might do this, you?re also smart enough to write a standard to prevent them from doing it.

But wouldn?t the private schools avoid ghetto areas?

That?s what your Third Sheet of paper is for -- if private industry or non-profit organizations aren?t willing to open a school in a particular area for $5,000 per child, bid $5,100 -- and keep bidding until you get a good school there. You have the money because you held back 10% of the funds, remember?

What about rural areas, or parents in areas where there are no alternative schools? How will these children get to school?

When the money accompanies the child, schools will be where they are needed -- aren't there gas stations and fast food joints wherever they are needed? In addition, there are many alternatives to the traditional method of schooling. A good example is the Arkansas Virtual School. This is now linked to the public school system, and currently offers a complete curriculum up thorough the eighth grade via the Internet. This technology -- already available throughout the state -- will allow any child to attend a quality school.

But can it be done at the figures you use?

Absolutely! I have worked for a for-profit company as a training analyst, developer and program manager. I have costed out, bid on, and won contracts. In the commercial training industry, the ?burden rate? -- the cost of overhead, administration, benefits, profit, and so on -- is about 100%. That means that for each dollar the company pays a professional (like myself) it must charge the customer two dollars to cover rent, salaries for administrative personnel, social security, health benefits and the like, and still make a profit.

If we maintain one teacher for each 25-student classroom and assume $5,000 for each child (Arkansas currently spends over $9,000 per child), that teacher is generating $125,000 per year, and we can afford to pay the teacher about $62,500 a year in salary.

But in a competitive market, we can do innovative things. For example, instead of starting school once a year, we could start school every quarter. This would generate a one-third increase in efficiency, so now the teacher is generating a little over $165,000 a year.

We can do other things -- for example, I mentioned the Arkansas Virtual School earlier. I have extensive experience with this type of technology. My company developed Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) programs in basic educational subjects for the Department of Defense. These programs were designed for military personnel who had graduated from the Public School System without the necessary reading, writing and math skills they needed.

We can use such programs combined with live classroom instruction to further increase the efficiency of the professional teacher, and raise the income generated to well over $200,000 per year -- which means we could afford to pay teachers an average annual salary of about $100,000. Of course, starting teachers would receive less, while experienced, star-quality teachers would receive much more.

But what would happen to the public schools?

They would become part of the Public Education System -- a system in which every child receives the same funding, and can attend any school the parents choose.

Bad public schools -- and bad private schools -- would fail. Good schools -- public and private -- would prosper.

What about rapidly-growing areas? How would they get schools?

Very easily. It typically takes the current bureaucracy-ridden system about five years to establish a new school.

But it doesn?t take private industry five years to put a shopping mall near a new subdivision, complete with fast food outlets, grocery and drug stores, video stores and gas stations. Private industry has shown that it can meet all the needs of the public, no matter how fast they change, if the profit is there.

Open up the Public Education System to private industry, and stand back and watch our schools improve.