With affordable housing, summer and after-school learning can start at home

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier

Given that housing prices and rents in California far exceed what is affordable to the average working family, a disproportionate number of California families experience housing instability. Housing instability hits children particularly hard, and can significantly affect their ability to engage at school or even their ability to attend school regularly.

We know that when children have a stable living environment they have reduced stress, better opportunities to learn and grow, and higher levels of literacy and academic achievement. Right now there is some incredible and groundbreaking work being done in affordable housing communities to deliver a range of vital supports to residents, including tutoring and learning enrichment programs for the children who call these communities home.

The after-school and summer learning programs administered in these communities give children and youth critical help they might not receive anywhere else, and dramatically increase their potential for bridging the achievement gap and succeeding in school.

After-school and summer programs, also known as expanded learning programs, provide a safe learning environment for students once they’ve left the classroom. The accumulating research continues to prove that expanded learning opportunities are essential to student success. Increasing the availability and quality of expanded learning opportunities within affordable housing communities helps provide low-income students with the solutions we know work to increase academic achievement, develop positive attitudes towards learning, and master the skills they need to succeed in life.

Jennifer Peck

Jennifer Peck

It is critical that these programs have quality content and educators, but it is just as critical that they are accessible to those who need them the most. The challenges many low-income students and their families face living in housing communities – lack of access to reliable transportation, safety concerns and a shortage of affordable childcare options (often resulting in older siblings staying close to home to care for younger siblings), can prevent many students from attending after-school or summer programs held at schools or community centers outside of their housing community. Because of their close proximity to homes, housing-based programs not only bring learning to these families’ doorsteps, they also lead to enhanced family engagement and higher participation rates. Program staff have the advantage of being close to the families of their students, often with first-hand knowledge of the particular challenges these families can face, allowing them to respond quickly and accurately.

But while we need more affordable housing communities to create and improve these programs for their youngest residents, we also need more affordable housing communities, period. As it stands now, there is a considerable shortage of affordable housing in California with more than 2 million children living in poverty. SB 391, supported by Housing California, the California Housing Consortium (CHC) and youth advocacy groups such as the Partnership for Children & Youth, can provide a permanent funding source to develop, purchase and preserve safe and affordable homes for low and moderate-income households. Every child needs and deserves a safe place to call home. These on-site expanded learning programs cannot exist without the sites themselves.

We know these programs are key to linking community development efforts and schools. As legislators, educators and advocacy groups come out in support of the extraordinary impact after-school and summer learning programs have on the lives of our students, the programs and services offered in affordable housing communities and the need for more affordable housing in which to offer these programs must not be ignored. Bringing these programs close to home – giving them a home – gives children and youth the advantage they need. It’s time we meet students in their own backyard.


Senator Mark DeSaulnier serves as chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and is the author of SB 391. Jennifer Peck is the Executive Director for Partnership for Children & Youth.

Filed under: Commentary, Expanded Learning, Reforms



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective.
  • Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to.
  • EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

52 Responses to “With affordable housing, summer and after-school learning can start at home”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. Floyd Thursby on Feb 11, 2014 at 3:01 pm02/11/2014 3:01 pm

    • 000

    This whole conversation is asinine. We need children. We need to replace the next generation. Society must continue.


    • navigio on Feb 11, 2014 at 3:49 pm02/11/2014 3:49 pm

      • 000

      I dont know, I think it’s a fair question. My priority is kids. When using social engineering via policy manipulation that affects adults directly, I believe we need to consider whether that policy actually helps kids. The answer to that question should inform how or even whether we’re willing to make such changes. If our goal is to punish children in order to coerce a specific behavior from their parents, then I think we need to say that.

      • Floyd Thursby on Mar 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm03/21/2014 4:37 pm

        • 000

        I agree with Navigio on this one. You can’t punish adults. Every child deserves an equal opportunity, which is probably impossible, but we need to try to tax from the elites and spend on the poor in a way to at least give a reasonable opportunity to children. Some poor kids succeed. But we need to help more do so. Punishing children for the acts of adults is counter-productive. If they end up poor, they’ll have a lot of kids and the beat goes on. The idea that you discourage adults into a sub-replacement birth rate by punishing their children is terrible policy and won’t get the intended result, in fact the opposite is happening.

        Collecting child support does and is lowering the birth rate.

  2. Floyd Thursby on Feb 10, 2014 at 4:10 pm02/10/2014 4:10 pm

    • 000

    When you say that tutoring can start at home, I think you miss something. People who end up on food stamps, welfare and public housing are fundamentally irresponsible, bad people, and pass that to their kids. The argument originally for welfare was that it would allow women to raise their children better, spend more time reading to them, but recent studies have shown parents who work 50+ hours a week in successful jobs actually spend more time reading to their children and doing homework with them than parents who don’t work at all, meaning we give them this time, at our expense, and they don’t take their kids to the free libraries or meet their teachers or read with them, they watch TV and hang out. Many do drugs. They didn’t live good lives to get there, they divorced, did drugs, and when lay offs came, they were laid off because they had the bad reputation as someone who probably missed work, didn’t try their best, wasn’t pleasant, etc. Bosses know who is being 100% moral on the job (always giving their best, being nice, being obedient, showing up, trying) and who is clock watching and distracted. Then you expect them to turn off the TV and be quiet in a small public housing or slum studio/apartment or trailer and diligently tutor their children or be quiet while someone else does? I know someone who tutored and they’d hear yelling in the next room, loud TVs, obnoxious laughter. You really need to change the culture. These people should be required to read and take a test proving they read ‘The Triple Package’ by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenstein before they are allowed to cash their next welfare check. They need to change everything about their approach to the world and way of life.


    • navigio on Feb 10, 2014 at 4:38 pm02/10/2014 4:38 pm

      • 000

      If you remove it will things be better for those children?

  3. Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 2:40 pm02/8/2014 2:40 pm

    • 000

    Gary, why do you never talk about test scores, the achievement gap, student achievement, future income, etc? Why do you never talk about the fact that Asian students study nearly 3 times as much as whites, are nearly 4 times as prepared when they start Kindergarten due to good parenting, and are nearly 4 times as likely to get into a UC as whites, the traditional dominant group? You just talk about job security and poverty. You should read ‘The Triple Package’, the new Amy Chua/Jeb Rubenstein book.

  4. Gary Ravani on Feb 7, 2014 at 1:04 pm02/7/2014 1:04 pm

    • 000

    Here is an excerpt from the latest CA Budget Project bulletin;

    More than one in five California children (22.5 percent) live in poverty. Children are affected by poverty in many ways, and those who live in deep poverty are particularly susceptible to the effects of economic hardship.1 Low-income children tend to lag behind higher-income children in terms of academic achievement, and children living in poverty often experience greater emotional
    and behavioral problems – such as acting out, depression, and anxiety – compared to their higher-income peers.2 In addition, low-income children are more likely to face a variety of health problems, such as low birth weight, obesity, and chronic health conditions like asthma and hearing, vision, and speech problems.3
    The effects of poverty often follow low-income children into adulthood, affecting both their health and their economic prospects.


    • Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 1:28 pm02/7/2014 1:28 pm

      • 000

      I’m sure the right answer is to devote tens of billions, no hundreds of billions of dollars to stop this epidemic. We’ve thrown a trillion at it, over 50 years and the result???

      Do you really think the Government is going to ‘cure’ this problem or is it going to perpetuate it, through nonsense solutions, poor execution and ineffective policy?

      Charity used to be the conduit for all these activities, not the Government. If you believe that taxpayer dollars will be the cure for all this, may I suggest you donate your entire paycheck to this? Personally, I donate to charity weekly, through an automatic paycheck deduction. I’m not the once-a-year Salvation Army quarter dropper in the can, but the $6 a week or over $300 a year and I also give to the American Red Cross as well. I trust these organizations to do what’s right, based on their performance and values.

      Compare that, to the Government’s performance and values in this same area. Not very good, huh?

    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 5:03 am02/8/2014 5:03 am

      • 000

      Children are affected, but a large part of it is bad parenting. Poor (bottom quintile) Asians do better on tests than 2d quintile black and Latino kids, the same as 2d quintile whites, and significantly better than middle/3d quintile whites. Poverty is a factor, but there are free libraries, free schools, often tutoring programs unused, etc. You see kids with all day Saturday, hanging out, playing sports. Study 6 hours on Saturday and 2 on Sunday, go to the libraries Summers, poverty won’t continue into the next generation. Also, don’t divorce and run off, stay there for your kids.

  5. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 12:55 pm02/7/2014 12:55 pm

    • 000

    Navigio, thanks for the response. I agree, that you cannot punish the children, yet, you have to take away the incentive of more children = more money. It is immoral, yet, how do we put the brakes on it? Throwing more Government money at it, has not been much of a cure, if not worsening the symptoms. To me, it seems the goal is to enlarge the Government, through these means and I fear that very, very much, given the times we are living in.

    Your comment is most enlightening and very much the truth:

    “It is true that people can rise from poverty, but historically, those who have been most ‘successful’ at doing so have been the exception, not the rule. If it were not, the idea of generational poverty would simply not exist.”

    Very true as well:

    “And worse, the idea that we should impose poverty on people in order to build their character is kind of absurd. That’s what puberty is for.”

    Yet, it seems that the very programs designed by inept politicians and do-gooders, does more to KEEP them there, than anything else. An independence of spirit and the ability to look beyond one’s circumstances at the potential, is very much missing.

    “It seems we are wont to impose our own challenges on others so that they may learn from them just as we did. Understandable.”

    True as well.

  6. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 11:13 am02/7/2014 11:13 am

    • 000


    There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me — some of its virus mingled with my blood. No — in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way.

    A man is not a good man to me because he will feed me if I should be starving, or warm me if I should be freezing, or pull me out of a ditch if I should ever fall into one. I can find you a Newfoundland dog that will do as much. Philanthropy is not love for one’s fellow-man in the broadest sense. Howard was no doubt an exceedingly kind and worthy man in his way, and has his reward; but, comparatively speaking, what are a hundred Howards to us, if their philanthropy do not help us in our best estate, when we are most worthy to be helped? I never heard of a philanthropic meeting in which it was sincerely proposed to do any good to me, or the like of me.

    Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them. We make curious mistakes sometimes. Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune. If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it. I was wont to pity the clumsy Irish laborers who cut ice on the pond, in such mean and ragged clothes, while I shivered in my more tidy and somewhat more fashionable garments, till, one bitter cold day, one who had slipped into the water came to my house to warm him, and I saw him strip off three pairs of pants and two pairs of stockings ere he got down to the skin, though they were dirty and ragged enough, it is true, and that he could afford to refuse the extra garments which I offered him, he had so many intra ones. This ducking was the very thing he needed. Then I began to pity myself, and I saw that it would be a greater charity to bestow on me a flannel shirt than a whole slop-shop on him. There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday’s liberty for the rest. Some show their kindness to the poor by employing them in their kitchens. Would they not be kinder if they employed themselves there? You boast of spending a tenth part of your income in charity; maybe you should spend the nine tenths so, and done with it. Society recovers only a tenth part of the property then. Is this owing to the generosity of him in whose possession it is found, or to the remissness of the officers of justice?


    • navigio on Feb 7, 2014 at 11:59 am02/7/2014 11:59 am

      • 000

      If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it.” Classic.

      The analogy of layered clothing doesnt quite work for things like feeding kids so they have energy and concentration in school. Though perhaps the line I quoted above does as even he points out that multiple layers of rags serve a functional purpose, if not a visual one. Plus its what the private food contractors want. I guess business for them is more important than prolonging societal class despair.

      (great excerpt btw. i am a sucker for quotes. oh, and my gramma was born in a house near where you grew up. and her brother worked for pacific electric. small world.)

    • navigio on Feb 7, 2014 at 12:30 pm02/7/2014 12:30 pm

      • 000

      btw, i think it is extremely important that people keep in mind the difference between incentivizing adult behavior and providing services for children. Making children starve with the goal of coercing their parents into being more responsible is immoral in my book. I tend to see the approach of denying children educational services in order to coerce district administrators and state legislators into a certain type of behavior in the same light. And while it may even be logical to argue that because one suffered a similar fate, it wont hurt them that bad, I dont think this validity extends to policy-making. It is true that people can rise from poverty, but historically, those who have been most ‘successful’ at doing so have been the exception, not the rule. If it were not, the idea of generational poverty would simply not exist. And worse, the idea that we should impose poverty on people in order to build their character is kind of absurd. That’s what puberty is for. 😉

      It seems we are wont to impose our own challenges on others so that they may learn from them just as we did. Understandable.

      And i cant resist a great quote i saw recently, “We need wilderness preserved–as much of it as is still left, and as many kinds–because it was the challenge against which our character as a people was formed. The reminder and the reassurance that it is still there is good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it.” – Wallace Stenger

  7. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:46 am02/7/2014 10:46 am

    • 000

    The preamble ‘promoting the general welfare’ in the mind of 1700’s Colonials (and I might add, a highly independent group, escaping a tyranny of British Taxation), meant not putting everyone on Welfare, because ‘Welfare’ didn’t exist until FDR’s New Deal in 1913. The Welfare clause was only put in there, to allow taxation to promote the ‘general’ welfare, which I interpret as the Madison view, versus the Hamiltonian view and this is still a subject of debate.

    One only has to read Thoreau’s take on the poor in ‘Walden’ to come up with a far more common sense view, versus the satirical and sarcastic writing or Mr. Swift in his response to the Irish. Eat the poor! You’d have to carve a lot of the fat off’ve the modern poor in the U.S., till you got any usable meat, from what I see of the Welfare crowd in Walmart.

    The bloated military, roads, etc are basic tenets of a common defense and infrastructure across State lines. We need a military to defend the country. We need roads for everybody, because that’s how we cross interstate lines efficiently. Also, I’m all for ending foreign entanglements as well. Karzai, can take a hike.

    So you talk about drawing a line, but I see none, with your view that the the Government, read the Taxpayer is OBLIGATED to provide free houses, food, school breakfast, lunch, dinner, medical care, child care, cell phones, utility bills, etc, etc, etc, for EVERYBODY. So if there are more ‘takers’ than ‘makers’ (thank you Ayn Rand), and the ‘makers’ are taxed to the 100% of their pay, it still wouldn’t be enough to cover the ‘taker’s take of free things on the Government Gravy Train!

    I grew up, a French speaking immigrant, in Downtown LA, with my mom, folding laundry at the Good Samaritan Hospital off’ve Wilshire Blvd, and my father, working for the Southern Pacific on 6th and Spring. NOBODY paid for my babysitting, but my Mom and Dad. Nobody gave me ‘free lunches, my momma packed me a lunch every day and we poured our own cereal or do you need a Common Core education to do that? We rented a house by the old Yellow Cab taxi facility on 6th Street and in fact, our old house on 440 Hartford avenue, was destroyed in the expansion of the LAUSD parking lot.

    I started working when I was 8 years old, buddy boy. My two brothers and I offered the guy running the paddle boats at McArthur Park to wash the sea gull crap, from the large flock of seagulls living there, off’ve the paddle boats, in return for an all-day use of one of the boats. He jumped on it, and every weekend, we’d scrub and hose down the white excrement off’ve all the boats in return for a whole day of paddling around the lake.

    Don’t even get me started on Prisons, because that’s what people like you design and help perpetuate. A birth-to-prison deadline of the poverty ridden in the guise of helping them. That gets expensive too, doesn’t it.

    What’s wrong with YOU people?


    • Gary Ravani on Feb 7, 2014 at 2:12 pm02/7/2014 2:12 pm

      • 000

      Gee Regis, your personal story of pluck and fortitude has brought such tears to my eyes I can barely see my keyboard anymore. You have connected the dots of both history and social policy in such a strange and distorted fashion that it does not seem worthwhile to try and change the surreal picture.

      So I won’t. Feel free to stew in your own fringe belief system of anger and nihilism.

      • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 4:59 am02/8/2014 4:59 am

        • 000

        Who do we need protection from? 9/11 was a police issue. Things happen, but not worth the amount we spent after attacking people and killing a million of them according to estimates who had nothing to do with 9/11, not even their leaders. Come on!

  8. Gary Ravani on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:20 am02/7/2014 10:20 am

    • 000


    Still haven’t checked on “Modest Proposal” yet, huh?

    The part of the Constitution your looking for is the first paragraph, called the “Preamble.” Talks about “promoting the general welfare.”

    Note we have: a bloated military for everybody, roads for everybody, police for everybody, fire protection for everybody. It’s drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to suggest that housing, food, childcare, medical care, etc., etc., etc. should not be for
    everybody” too.

    CalWorks is based on the concept of “work.” You include childcare in your figures. What is supposed to happen to the kids when the parent is working? (See Swift.) And then there is food and medical. Do you expect them to suffer illness and hunger while they are working and parenting too? Oh, I know, “Are there no workhouses, are there no prisons?”

    What’s wrong with you people?


    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 4:53 am02/8/2014 4:53 am

      • 000

      Very true, great point. We could spend less than half what we do on military, a 3d, and be tremendously safe. We could pay tutors to tutor poor kids in math and English instead of soldiers for “defense”, which I call offense, who’s attacked us since Pearl Harbor? We also have way too many people in prison for petty crimes. These are huge wastes. Much doesn’t even circulate. Military bases in over 150 nations? What a waste. And not all that pay goes to Haliburton and creates jobs (what a corrupt company!). Much goes to foreign sex traffickers. Not that I’m against prostitutes doing it if they choose to as adults, but a lot of that money goes to ones forced into it by extreme poverty and pimps and drug predators in the 3d world. Cut that stuff, hire tutors.

  9. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:03 am02/7/2014 10:03 am

    • 000

    U.S. Department of Education, timephased Budget, 1980 through Present,


    1980 = 14 Billion Dollars

    2012 = 39 Billion Dollars a 284% increase.

    2013 = 53 Billion Dollars a 384% increase!!!

    And what do we get out of it? NCLB? Common Core?


    • Paul on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:30 am02/7/2014 10:30 am

      • 000

      Just a few increases in scope of services, before considering normal inflation:

      – Special education, in terms of increased prevalence of the designation, increased services for the designated students, and an increasing federal role

      – Expanded student loan access

      – Increased direct student loan lending, because private partners completely exited the federal student loan market in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis

      – Increasesd student loan defaults during recessions in the 1990s and 2000s

      – Increased student loan balances, as university tuition has been rising much faster than ordinary inflation

      Looking at increases in the total US Department of Education budget — even if corrected for ordinary inflation — ignores changes in the scope of services, read, in the needs and expectations of the general public. This is much like Jarvis-Gann, which limits growth in state spending to ordinary inflation times population growth, as if the scope of government services could remain frozen about 1976.

  10. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 9:54 am02/7/2014 9:54 am

    • 000

    El, the ACA is a disaster in the making. Passed along strict party lines and 15,000 pages of regulations, a poorly run website and typical Government malfeasance. When Government takes over a 1/6th of the Economy, that is a recipe for disaster. Competition is what drove this country for many, many decades and the Free Market is what works, not the Government, because from the results of Government interference, you only get grief in the form of a highly staffed, poorly run, wasteful boondoogle of a program, that never stops growing. It becomes a cancer.

    “Kids are our future taxpayers. Instead of worrying about every individual parent paying “us” now, if we take the long view and realize the kids could pay us back with interest if we invest in them.”

    Invest? From the State of California, the top 15% pay 85% of the State taxes and the rest, little to nothing. The LAUSD is 78% Hispanic and from the 2000 Census (they made the 2010 Census, really difficult to cull figures from, deliberately), that particular demographic pays, little to nothing in taxes. 55% of that demographic, made less than $40,000 a year, but with an average of 2.9 (let’s round it off and call it three), for each child in the LAUSD, at $13K a pop, it cost the real taxpayer $39K a year, just for the education, not counting the numerous ‘entitlements’ discussed here.

    It is a ‘black hole of money’ and money, is not an endless commodity, last time I checked. What we have, is a Government that is artificially supporting the very rich and the very poor and leaving the rest of us, to fend for ourselves, while they force an ever-increasing tax burden on us. Like the 3% gas tax hike, by the California Board of Equalization, last July, with three of the four voting to approve it, with no taxpayer input whatsoever. Guess the party of the lone dissenter? I call that taxation without representation.

  11. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 9:38 am02/7/2014 9:38 am

    • 000

    You are correct in your taxation view that Married people with children, enjoy a benefit, in the form of EITC, that Single people, do not. I have paid Single and no deductions for decades and I when I worked in Payroll at one time, that even without the EITC, the Single Taxpayer, paid considerably more, than the Married Taxpayer and thus, was penalized, while consuming far less in Government Services.

    You are correct as well, in this statement

    Saying that people shouldn’t have children unless and until they are financially able to support those children makes perfect sense, but:

    1. “It doesn’t help solve the problems of children who are already born and living in poverty.”

    Thus, my 18 year plan, to continue payments that are ongoing, but starting in year one, no more money for any babies beyond one, period. You don’t slow down Poverty, by bringing more and more people into it and gathering an increasing amount of benefits.

    Also, as stated earlier, the “It’s for the Children” has become a weaponized term to demand an ever-increasing amount of benefits to a non-stop growth of Goverment Sponsored Poverty, for political gains (see the Democratic Agenda of increasing their voter rolls with a non-stop supply of ready-born Democrats).

    2. It often belies meanness and scorn, rather a desire to improve people’s lives. (I say it myself, but in the sense of a rational decision-making principle for individuals.)

    If there’s any meanness and scorn, it is only from the forced picking of my pocket by a Government, hell-bent on spending itself into oblivion. If the National Debt as a percentage of our GDP is of any concern, we should be alarmed.

    Also, the poverty never seems to end, but only increases in size and magnitude along with the broken Government system of enlargening it, for their own gain. Have you seen a shrinkage of any Government Entity, yet, in your lifetime?

    I wonder how Jimmy Carter’s Federal “Department Of Education” (number one, in my book, to get rid of) has grown in scope, cost and power, since it’s implementation?

    Those who look to the Government as the cure for all ills, should be wary, based on the absolutely dismal results that are obvious for all to see.


    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 2:15 am02/8/2014 2:15 am

      • 000

      Nothing you do impacts the next generation, you don’t need more money. If you don’t want more people in poverty, instead of whining about your taxes, adopt a foster child. Studies show those adopted do average, and those never adopted but only taken care of as foster children go to prison or end up homeless more often than graduating college. Make a difference, help someone else. I’d say you having extra cash is a low priority for society if you have children. We need to maintain a birth rate that replaces us. We aren’t expanding by birthrate, only by immigration. Our birth rate is too low now, under 2.1.

  12. el on Feb 7, 2014 at 9:25 am02/7/2014 9:25 am

    • 000

    Greater access to birth control, such that people can plan their families, can only be good, and hopefully that’s in store thanks to ACA.

    Regis ignores that possibility that people who are doing fine economically sometimes lose their jobs or have other economic setbacks after they have children. Obviously, the answer is to be able to sell those children off in the free market.

    Kids are our future taxpayers. Instead of worrying about every individual parent paying “us” now, if we take the long view and realize the kids could pay us back with interest if we invest in them, I think we’ll be better off and find the situation more satisfying. The parents who can’t invest in their kids represent a failure of the previous generation to invest in them.

  13. Paul on Feb 7, 2014 at 8:55 am02/7/2014 8:55 am

    • 000

    Saying that people shouldn’t have children unless and until they are financially able to support those children makes perfect sense, but:

    1. It doesn’t help solve the problems of children who are already born and living in poverty.

    2. It often belies meanness and scorn, rather a desire to improve people’s lives. (I say it myself, but in the sense of a rational decision-making principle for individuals.)

    3. As a guide to policymaking it falls flat. This isn’t because policies neutral to parenthood would be bad, but rather, because they would be unpalatable. Conservatives can harp all they want about subsidized day care and after-school programs, but those expenses are minuscule. The real subsidies for parenthood come in the form of different tax treatment of single people without children, single people with children, and the luckiest of all, married people with children. Looking beyond government, there are substantial subsidies for parents in the private market, too. I’m not talking about “kids eat free”, but rather, about greater employer health insurance premium subsidies to workers with children than to workers without (typical, but not universal, among US employers who subsidize employee health insurance), and about the very notion of a “family” health insurance premium tier, where, once you exceed the self + spouse + child threshold, you pay the same premium regardless of the number of children (universal in US health insurance pricing). Elsewhere in the workplace, employees with children (and those with spouses) enjoy other overt preferences, some of which have economic consequences. An unmarried and childless person has no built-in excuse if he or she doesn’t want to stay late or work on the weekend, and no free pass for leaving early to pick up the kids or for being tired on the job because baby isn’t sleeping through the night yet.

    We need after-school and summer programs, and we need them close to where their clients live. I’ve taught in summer and after-school programs and found them to be a welcome complement to the increasing rigidity of the regular school day and school year. Where else will poor children be exposed to the arts, to computers, and to outdoor activities?

    We need affordable housing, too, but we must decide whether housing should be allowed to become so expensive, and people’s wages, so low, that subsidies will become the only avenue for housing most of the US population.

    (The bill mentioned in the article takes an interesting tack, by having home buyers subsidize affordable housing, to the tune of $75 every time a deed is recorded. This won’t raise much money, but the idea is interesting. Astute observers will note that the idea has pros and cons in the progressive-versus-regressive tax ledger. Some may remember the old federal real estate transfer tax — and the days before federal and state taxation were reduced to levels systemically below the cost of existing government operations, including basic social services. Compare the scope of the fedral income tax, and the top marginal income tax rates, in 1974 and 2014. And here in California, can you say “Proposition 13″, “VLF”, “local tax”, or “temporary state tax measure”, to give an impression of the tax revenue landscape from the 1970s to the present?)

    And yes, we could make economic life better for everyone if we made big policy changes to put parenthood on a neutral footing rather than on a privileged one — but that can’t happen because our preference for parenthood is so deeply ingrained. (There is currently no risk of a net US population decline, and has there ever been a finding that population growth is necessary to economic success?)


    • Paul on Feb 7, 2014 at 8:59 am02/7/2014 8:59 am

      • 000

      Point #2 should read “…rather THAN a desire to improve people’s lives.”

    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 2:10 am02/8/2014 2:10 am

      • 000

      I disagree with this. I have 5 kids. People over 35 with no kids and high income should pay a surtax. They’re hurting America. Did you ever see ‘Idiocracy’? We need those of high income to raise children well. Yes, it’s WAY more important to leave early to raise children than to learn Spanish or hang out in a bar or take a lesson. Childraising is the most important thing, and parents need to do it well. They need to read to kids, teach them, etc. And you don’t want to discourage children by charging health insurance per child, you’ll make people with 2 or 3 unable to have another due to cost. We already have to pay more for everything else and it is overwhelming. You may say this now, but in 5-10 years we could have a birth rate under 2.1 which has been a horrible disaster for Europe and Japan. Italy will be a majority Muslim country by 2060, not the Italy we think of. France by 2090 and England by 2110. It’s only a matter of time before we have ‘Idiocracy’ on our hands.

      • Paul on Feb 9, 2014 at 9:10 am02/9/2014 9:10 am

        • 000

        I think we’d have far fewer social problems if Americans could choose freely (and deliberately) to have children or not to have children. Children would be born to parents eager to care for them in the thorough ways that you and I both favor. And they would be born to parents financially able to care for them (in a country where, for better or for worse — I’m not giving an opinion, just stating a fact — people’s basic living expenses are intended to be private expenses).

        As matters stand today, strong social incentives and governmental and private financial incentives favor parenthood. I am not assailing government programs for poor children, nor the EITC as another commentator thought, but rather, income tax reductions for parents, health insurance price differentials, employer health insurance subsidy differentials, potential employee productivity differentials, etc. Interestingly, these incentives benefit middle- and high-income families much more than they do low-income families, where parents pay a lower marginal income tax rate, are less likely to have health insurance, employer-subsidized or otherwise, and are more likely to work on a straight-hourly, rather than salaried, basis.

        There is no empirical evidence to support financial incentives for parenthood. Restraint produces better outcomes for individual parents and children — more resources for a smaller number of people.

        Socially, one person’s decision not to have children, but to expend his or her money and time on other pursuits (which might even include pursuits with overt social benefits, such as becoming a public school teacher, or caring for an ailing parent, or volunteering) is not better or worse than another person’s decision to have children (which, given the family wreckage that I confronted regularly in the schools, does not necessarily produce a social benefit). People should be completely free to choose. Here again, Americans run into a problem as we claim to be a free, market-based society, but instead act to limit freedom of choice and manipulate the market. If you support social and financial incentives for parenthood, certainly you would support making them overt and disclosing their costs, no?

        Regarding the US population, I repeat: there is currently no risk of net population decline. (And population decline wouldn’t necessarily entail economic decline, anyway.) Birth rates vary by ethnic group, which explains why the US population is growing and changing as it is.

  14. Regis on Feb 7, 2014 at 7:44 am02/7/2014 7:44 am

    • 000

    Good Morning, Gary.

    Not sure how the CA LAO, came up with these numbers and I believe you referenced this site for your figures:


    Interesting, that they call it “handouts”. I got my figures, directly from the California Department of Social Services, who actually runs CALWORKS. The LAO is deliberately misleading you, by only providing a partial picture, which is $638 for the CALWORKS grant and $515 for the CALWORKS Benefit. That adds up to roughly the figure the LAO came up with.

    It does not include $468 of Medi-CAL benefits, or free health care, paid for, again, by the taxpayer, nor does it include $1,425 for CALWORKS Child Care. The Total Benefits are $3,046 a month, or $36,522 a year. Note carefully, Gary, that it does not include Section 8 housing, which for a family of four is $668 a month, or $8,016 a year, which brings the total to over $44,000 a year.

    It also irks me, highly that we have to pay for them, to babysit each others kids and worse, one can pay a relative, who already stays home (kith and kin) to look after them. Also, allow me to point out, that the Food Stamp benefit, called TANF, seems to disincentivize people to even feed their own brood. Just why does the school (Taxpayer) have to feed these kids, breakfast, snacks, lunch and an after school ‘dinner’? Let me guess, ‘It’s for the Children’ and no child should go hungry.

    Why doesn’t Mom (or Dad, if he’s there…) get up and make them breakfast? Pack a sack lunch? Where’s the personal responsibility there? After all, the Taxpayer is paying for them to eat, babysit, have a free house, free cellphone, reduced utilities and on and on. The State of California, will even repair your car for you, if you fail to pass smog and met the ‘income requirements’.

    I highly disagree with your take on the Great Society. So you’re saying, throw even more money at it? This is insanity, when nearly 48% of the Federal Budget is going out to entitlements. And by the way Social Security has been paid for, by the boomers and it has served as a convenient slush fund for wasteful government spending at exorbitant levels.

    As far as a ‘Gold Standard’, bring it on. Surely, you must know, that the only reason, we can print as much as we want (so far) is that the US Dollar is the Reserve Currency of the World, but increasingly, other countries are wary of buying our debt and the Federal Reserve now buys about half our debt each month and converts it to Treasury bills, which we’ll have to pay interest on.

    Also, the PetroDollar is endangered by the increased willingness to trade in other currencies. The dollar has lost 95% of it’s value, since the implementation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Fiat money is just that. It’s worth, what people think it’s worth, till it’s not.

    I have to address the issue of ‘real jobs programs’. Certainly this is a fallacy. Take a close look at the Constitution and the Bill or Rights (yes, those annoying documents that our Country was founded on) and show me, where it is the role of the Government to ‘create jobs’. Shovel Ready = Let me point you to a big pile of manure. It is up to Government to provide an atmosphere where entreprenuers and businesses can grow and hire people, without the huge amount of what we have now, excess Government Regulations, Taxation and Interference in areas, they have no business in.

    Austerity measures? Surely we need to rein in the incredible growth of Government soon, before the behemoth takes over everything. You want more Government. Well friend, soon, you shall have it. The Government is even planning on taxing you to you move around. The PPIC wants to “disincentivize” long commutes by penalizing the people who live in the suburbs. Also, Ray LaHood, former DOT chief, says, not enough money is coming in to maintain the infrastructure of the highway system in the U.S. and proposed a tax on mileage driven.

    Finally, I understand you have an Empire to protect. The California School System is now a major political force in California, with the CTA being one of the biggest donors to Jerry Brown’s reelection. Isn’t that convenient? Add the SEIU (despicable) Purple Shirts and their money and drive to even make babysitters and caregivers State Employees and Union Members at the same time! That will sure save people money (sarc).

    Gotta love, the incredible pensions, that some of the California politicians walk away with, like the Alameda County Administrater, Susan Muranashi, $423,000 a year for life, including an $8K a year ‘car allowance’. That’s nearly a new 2014 Corvette payment! Well, she’ll have to shell out a c-note for that ‘Vette.

    Remember well, it’s not your money, it’s belongs to that increasingly extinct creature, we’ll call the Taxpayer. That person has a right to keep their earnings and not be forced to pay for an ever-increasing slew of Government programs, including what this article fist started off with; ‘Free Houses for Everybody’.


    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 2:05 am02/8/2014 2:05 am

      • 000

      I have always wondered why we spend money which could go to Kumon or 1-on-1 tutors so desperately needed by the poor goes to paying for school breakfast and lunch, which should be another budget, when the food stamps allowed are based on providing adequate nutrition for each member of the family. Maybe the meals should come out of the food stamp budget, and then used for tutors to teach kids a one-on-one class on …turning off the TV, not being like your parents, studying 20 hours a week, reading hours a day, etc. Why the double dip? Why are we hearing about poor kids without enough to eat when they get food stamps? And why is it that among these people who get school lunch/breakfast and foodstamps, obesity is higher, not lower?

  15. Gary Ravani on Feb 6, 2014 at 6:13 pm02/6/2014 6:13 pm

    • 000

    Right, Regis, check out old Jonathan and his “menu” for dealing with the poor. LOL

    Take care about criticizing the “non-genius” crowd too much. You never know who might fall into that category.

    I suppose, follow your train of “thought” above, the next best solution is a return to the “gold standard.”

    BTW, you said: ” There’s no need to strive to work out of ‘poverty’, because the Government guarantees a $52K a year salary, to a non-working, unmarried mother of two. ($36K in CALWORKS Benefits and Section 8 combined).”

    According to the CA LAO’s website monthly CalWorks allowance for a family of 3 is–$1168 per month. This makes yearly income $13, 916. This comes with the requirement of 32 work-related hours per week I guess that’s what puts the WORK in CalWorks.

    So–let’s see–if the remaining $38K comes from section 8 housing @ $3K plus a month those must be pretty fancy digs.

    And BTW, the Great Society, not to mention Social Security, has brought many out of poverty. Poverty began to grow again as a result of the dismantling of Great Society programs beginning with Reagan. As much as conservatives and libertarians have tried to dismantle it, Social Security now keeps the elderly out of poverty with great success.

    QE by itself has not had a profound effect on the economy in terms of improving life for the poor and middle-class. It is unfortunate that the deficit scare-mongers were able to kill any real jobs program. That more of a fight was not put up by the Obama Administration to quash failed austerity measures is almost as shameful as what Arne Duncan has wrought in education. But not quite.


    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 8, 2014 at 1:07 am02/8/2014 1:07 am

      • 000

      Gary is 100% right in this case. We need to educate all children better, to compete and be productive. Poor Asians come here and, with low wage jobs, their kids qualify for UCs at 33.5%, vs. 8.7% for whites. Now many Asians have good jobs, but a poor Asian is more likely than an average white to make a UC. It’s not genetic. Everyone can do it. We need to convince kids to work as hard as Asians, to read Amy Chua, that it can be done, we need to give the poor the benefits of our habits. Social Security is a great program and Reagain did hurt the poor. Welfare is not as generous as all that. And really, do you want to let children starve? Really? We need to find a way to teach them habits. However, we need to guarantee every child a good teacher. If people are plentiful, we have to fire bad ones and hire good ones and not overpay any. Teacher wages should go down over time, or stay the same only if quality and effort improves, and go up if quality improves even more so, then it’s win-win. That’s where I disagree with Gary. We need to be results-driven;

  16. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 3:57 pm02/6/2014 3:57 pm

    • 000

    Gary, Allow me to answer your response. I certainly am not a believer in the ‘markets’ as they exist now, because the entire Wall Street complex, is an excellent example of Cronyism at it’s best. It is not a ‘free market’, as you have a huge amount of Federal interference in the form of QE that is artificially supporting a very ‘Casino’ like environment. Wall Street owns Washington and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. And what does Wall Street produce of any value? Goods? Services? Anything? It sure sloshes a lot of money around and the foam gets skimmed off at the top, to the benefits of a few.

    The Federal Reserve has been enrichening the infamous 1% in the form of not only QE, but POMO’s, paying banks for excess reserves, and on and on and I’m a firm believer in killing off this organization as it is really a very large theft against the American people.

    As far as a potential resource of the poor children, I tire of the “It’s for the Children” mantra that has become a political weapon to quell any dissent to a Socialist policy that has been in place for half a Century. LBJ’s Great Society program, in my opinion has been an excellent example of what excessive Government interference can do. Has it reduced the poverty or out-of-wedlock births that are now a staple of much of the down-and-trodden? Not one iota, but has only increased it.

    One should be alarmed at the ever-expanding size of Government and it’s debt. Our forefathers warned us, wisely of this circumstance and what it could bring about and we are now seeing it. When the media reports that the Government Shutdown, reduced our GDP by 4% to 5%, that is worrisome!

    I will take a look at Jonathan Swift’s book “A Modest Proposal”. I’d like to see, just how ‘modest’ it is and how much it will cost me, the taxpayer.

    Thank You.

  17. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 3:44 pm02/6/2014 3:44 pm

    • 000

    Navigio, we’ve discussed the subsidies and I highly disagree with any kind of subsidy period. Having said that, at least we get something useful out of the Farm and Corporations, like Produce, Livestock, Products and yes, some jobs. What do we get out of subsidizing the poor population? A lot of crime, poverty and miserable circumstances.

    I’ll agree with you on the globalization as well, but I believe, that even if you brought the jobs back, there still would be an imbalance of that ratio we’ve just discussed. I’d like to see tariff’s and profits come back to our shores. Technology is here and there needs to be reasonable limits on the human population to support that.

    Believe me, I’m not a Republican either. The left and the right are just two wings on the same bird.

    Finally, I think excessive Government interference in Social affairs, doesn’t allow the best and the brightest to rise above their circumstance, through hard work and dedication, but instead allows the lazy, the indolent and the indigent to produce an ever-increasing low IQ population that votes for their best interests: being on the dole, or some kind of Government Subsidy forever and ever and ever.

    Have you ever seen our Government run anything that wasn’t filled with abuse, huge amounts of waste and inefficiency? The School Systems are a classic example of this.

    PS: Thanks for the responses, it was highly interesting debating with you, as always but it is the end of my day and I must go.

  18. Gary Ravani on Feb 6, 2014 at 3:36 pm02/6/2014 3:36 pm

    • 000

    It’s possible Regis is missing a bet here. A perceptive capitalist, Ayn Rand fanboy, and obsessive believer in the power of markets would not fail to see the children of the poor as the potential resource they are. Obviously, it’s time to reread Jonathan Swifts”A Modest Proposal.”

  19. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 3:16 pm02/6/2014 3:16 pm

    • 000

    Q: Regis, why do we ignore that our system creates so many poor people? Do you think there is something inherently wrong with the model? Or is it just that those pesky poor people refuse to play along?

    A: It’s the Cloward-Piven strategy of the “Weight of the Poor”. The poor nearly almost always vote Democrat, because that’s who feeds em, breeds them and keeps them in power. The more poor babies pop out, the more Democratic voters the System gets. It works, till the Government runs out of money. The Government wants to keep those people on the dole. They are on the Government plantation and knoweth not, the chains that bind them to poverty.

    They’re led to believe that it’s everybody elses fault and accept little if any responsibility for their actions or lifestyles or the amount of kids they pop out so generously on our dime. Entitlements have become a way of life for a very large part of the population, as evidenced by the output of Taxpayer money to them. That’s money that the Taxpayer could spend on goods, that would stimulate business’s, that if the regulatory environment weren’t so sucky, would hire people to work.

    We use to have nearly a half dozen automobile plants in California and now we have none. Now we have a bunch of Community Organizers, dragging the poor and the ignorant to SCAQMD and Council meetings to bitch about the Vernon Battery Recycling plant, the Refineries, the Railroads, the trucks on the freeway. Hey, I grew up down there, right by the Brew 102 plant and also, by Echo Park and McArthur Park by Belmont High and you didn’t hear my parents whining about nose bleeds and sickness. Pretty soon, the only thing we’ll have for business’s is the taco cart on the sidewalk.

    You’re poor, you live in a poor neighborhood. Too bad, industry has to exist somewhere. Tough luck and do something about it. Improve yourself, learn the language, assimilate and educate yourself and you might just go somewhere. Worked for me. Nobody gave me nothing. I worked my butt off to get where I’m at, thank you.

    CA GDP: almost $2 Trillion. Yes, per year. I won’t deny that, but adding up the costs of maintaining a poor population in LA County alone and then multiplying that by the many counties, I’d bet, that would put a big dent in that number.


    • navigio on Feb 6, 2014 at 3:19 pm02/6/2014 3:19 pm

      • 000

      Do farm and corporate subsidies count?

      The reason we’ve lost jobs is not because we have too many poor people, in fact, ironically probably just the opposite. Our workers are not poor enough to be worth hiring by our companies.

  20. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 2:31 pm02/6/2014 2:31 pm

    • 000

    Lessee… Looking at the LA County Budget as a Finance Analyst…


    Public Social Services: $3,528,037,000 or 3 1/2 Billion Dollars a year!

    Public Social Services ADMINISTRATION: $1,692,487,000 a year or nearly $1.7 Billion Dollars a year, to ‘run this and pass out checks’.

    Child and Family Support Services: $1,843,534,000 or 1.8 Billion Dollars a year!

    Foster Care DCFS: $500,049,000 or half a billion Dollars a year!

    Public Health Programs: $286,747,000 million dollars or over a 1/4 billion dollars a year. Salaries and Employee Benefits $301,760,000 and add it up, to bring it to over a half billion dollars.

    Sheriff (not counting the LAPD): $1,481,775,000 or nearly 1 1/2 billion dollars!

    LAUSD: They’re already running a deficit, go figure. $6,000,000,000 or $6 Billion dollars a year. With the majority of the students at a “Poverty Level”… Because their parents are at a poverty level and don’t pay any or little taxes, but expect a wide range of services.


    • navigio on Feb 6, 2014 at 2:45 pm02/6/2014 2:45 pm

      • 000

      CA GDP: almost $2 Trillion. Yes, per year.

  21. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm02/6/2014 1:41 pm

    • 000

    OK, allow me to add some thoughts.

    I don’t value technology over humans, but obviously, with such an incredible supply of humans everywhere and in such huge amounts, their value diminishes. Look at any bumper sticker on an LA County or City of Los Angeles vehicle, imploring mothers to drop off their babies at any fire department. What it really means is: “Don’t throw your baby away, bring it to us and we’ll put it with the rest of them in the Foster Care system” (another black hole of Taxpayer money). The Common Sense thing, would be to NOT have the baby at all. Problem solved! The taxpayer is not going to be on the hook for Foster Care, education, incarceration, etc, etc. You ain’t going to get apples out of an onion field, that’s for sure.

    The City of Los Angeles released a report recently, that I’m sure you saw, that outlined the major problems the City is having, with overcrowding and poverty. This is a world wide problem as well. My take is, that we don’t need that many humans overrunning the planet with a vastly unlimited population potential and it is the poverty stricken, that reproduce the most.

    Less people would mean less of a strain on our resources. Look at our water situation. Do you really think that Southern California can sustain an endless population growth? The ongoing fight over the Colorado River water rights is another example, as other states with increasing populations, fight for more water.

    Why do we exist? I certainly don’t exist to give my paycheck happily away to a huge population that is highly service intensive, that’s for sure. Two thirds of LA County’s Budget is spent on maintaining the Poor population in Los Angeles. Between 23% to 27% is spent on three major categories: Social Services, Health Care and Police and Fire Protection.

    Do we really need any more poor people? I don’t think so. And we don’t need the ever-expanding, Government, to get any bigger, but it never seems to stop. Too many of them are gaming the system. When the Federal Shutdown happened, Jerry Brown was worried about the Federal money coming in for Food Stamps and he quouted a state-wide figure of $645 MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH!!!

    That’s a lot of frigging money and that’s just for Food Stamps! Imagine what all the other “Entitlement” Programs add to! That’s money that either comes from the Taxpayer (the top 15% in California, pay 85% of the taxes, the rest, hardly nothing), selling Muni Bonds in an soon-to-be increasingly hostile environment towards muni-bonds, or it’s printed by the Fed, feeding it’s own debt and passing it on.

    That money could be kept by a responsible populace with a minimal amount to maintain the infrastructure and for the common defense of this country. Government was never intended to be the backstop to every living soul on the planet.


    • navigio on Feb 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm02/6/2014 2:52 pm

      • 000

      Dont disagree that the situation exists. Probably disagree on the causes.

      Ironically, if the rich want to get richer, seems the best way to do that would be to increase entitlements. Since the argument goes that those cause people to want to be poor, it will do a good job of increasing the income gap.

      Anyway, we’ve had this discussion before. Providing food and shelter are not really options in most areas of this country. Especially in cities that have become so dense and large as to make unassisted access to food and water essentially impossible.

      Regis, why do we ignore that our system creates so many poor people? Do you think there is something inherently wrong with the model? Or is it just that those pesky poor people refuse to play along?

  22. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 8:31 am02/6/2014 8:31 am

    • 000

    I’ve given careful thought to this, believe it or not. I propose an eighteen year plan. Starting next year, the Government, will only pay FOR YOUR MISTAKE ONCE. Yep, you can have ONE baby on my dime. The next two or three or whatever, you PAY for.

    If you think about it, it’s really about supply and demand. When you have a huge supply of an imported illiterate, non-english, non-assimilating population, that is well-suited for the ‘service economy’ but little else, yet take far more in Goverment (read; Taxpayer) benefits, including Education at $13K LAUSD per year, per child, then they pay (or what little they pay) in taxes, you have a problem.

    The huge supply of this low side Labor, is a huge disadvantage, to those very people, because the demand is not there. So that makes them a cheap commodity, does it not? My formula for Wages would go like this and it’s simple math, that even a common core Teacher or Student would understand.

    Wages = Supply, that huge population (10) + Demand, the increasingly limited number of jobs (-20).

    If you don’t believe me, Google has a newspaper archive and go look at any large city newspaper in the late 60’s and peruse the want ads. There were page, after page for job openings, spanning a dozen pages or more. Now? A page or so.

    As an example, what effects do you think the Barcode and Barcode readers had on the retail market? When I was growing up, the checker had to enter, each and every price on a mechanical cash register and every item was individually priced with a price tag. And with that, a whole lot of jobs, simply went ‘poof’! And that’s just one example!

    So if there were less poverty-ridden people competing for an increasingly decreasing job market, wouldn’t that benefit the ‘supply-demand’ equation? Less of them, would make the few, more valuable.


    • navigio on Feb 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm02/6/2014 12:00 pm

      • 000

      Although I come from the technology world I am also a Luddite. The reason I’m a Luddite is that I recognize the limits of technology when viewed in human terms or priorities.

      Your argument implies that technology will eventually make humans extinct. While that’s actually probably the most likely scenario, I don’t think anyone thought it would come as a result of labor market supply and demand dynamics.

      Let’s just say that I believe that it’s wrong to prioritize the value of technology over the value of humans (as important as technology is). If we end up modifying our values as a response to a manufactured world of economics then I’d say we’ve gotten lost.

      I won’t deny that there is a supply and demand force within the labor market, but I also think we need to keep some perspective and remember why it is that we actually exist.

  23. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 7:58 am02/6/2014 7:58 am

    • 000

    Yep! Don’t rely on the government to support you for generation upon generation. There is this concept called “Personal Responsibility”. My ex-wife after we were divorced, rented out to a Section 8 family and I’ve lived next door to them numerous times, so I know all about them and how they operate.

    There is no longer a stigma to being dependent on the government. In fact, it’s now called an “entitlement” and the WIC, CALWORKS and Section 8 recipients are now called “clients”. There’s no need to strive to work out of ‘poverty’, because the Government guarantees a $52K a year salary, to a non-working, unmarried mother of two. ($36K in CALWORKS Benefits and Section 8 combined).

    The portion of the population on Food Stamps is at an all time high. Add to the fact that Technology, offshoring, NAFTA and a whole host of job-killing programs and regulations, have permanently eliminated many of the jobs for the ‘less-than-genius’ crowd, means that we don’t need a huge lower class to reproduce as heartily as they do.

    When everybody is on the dole, just who is going to pay for the ever-increasing reach of Government? The shrinking taxpayer base? Selling municipal bonds (Does Detroit, Puerto Rico and Chicago ring a bell?).


    • navigio on Feb 6, 2014 at 8:03 am02/6/2014 8:03 am

      • 000

      How do you enforce it?

  24. Regis on Feb 6, 2014 at 7:09 am02/6/2014 7:09 am

    • 000

    “Right now there is some incredible and groundbreaking work being done in affordable housing communities to deliver a range of vital supports to residents, including tutoring and learning enrichment programs for the children who call these communities home”

    Translation: Affordable Housing = Taxpayer Subsidized Housing. Tuturing and Learning Enrichment Programs = Taxpayer Subsidized Parenting.

    Results: The same as always. Can’t seem to change the achievement gap…

    “After-school and summer programs, also known as expanded learning programs, provide a safe learning environment for students once they’ve left the classroom.”

    Translation: Taxpayer subsidized after school babysitting. I wonder how many of these families also collect CALWORKS money as well…

    “But while we need more affordable housing communities to create and improve these programs for their youngest residents, we also need more affordable housing communities, period. As it stands now, there is a considerable shortage of affordable housing in California with more than 2 million children living in poverty.”

    Don’t have kids, you can’t afford to feed. Do away with the multitude of Government programs that reward child birth to people that have lived off’ve the system for generations, with dismal results.

    “… SB 391,supported by Housing California, the California Housing Consortium (CHC) and youth advocacy groups such as the Partnership for Children & Youth, can provide a permanent funding source to develop, purchase and preserve safe and affordable homes for low and moderate-income households. . SB 391, supported by Housing California, the California Housing Consortium (CHC) and youth advocacy groups such as the Partnership for Children & Youth, can provide a permanent funding source to develop, purchase and preserve safe and affordable homes for low and moderate-income households.

    Translation: And now we’ve got to buy them houses too??? So… who pays for this?

    “Every child needs and deserves a safe place to call home.” That is not a premise of government. That is up to the parents and the community. Who is responsible for the high crime rate? The high out-of-wedlock birthrate? That must be the taxpayers fault. Let’s fleece them some more, to support an ever-increasing burden, of a fast growing poverty-ridden population, that increasingly relies on Big Government solutions, that always fail.

    “Bringing these programs close to home – giving them a home – gives children and youth the advantage they need. It’s time we meet students in their own backyard.”

    Listen, Senator Desalnier, why don’t YOU buy them a home, with your own personal money, if you feel that strongly about it.


    • navigio on Feb 6, 2014 at 7:43 am02/6/2014 7:43 am

      • 000

      Don’t have kids, you can’t afford to feed.

      So is that your solution?

    • Floyd Thursby on Feb 6, 2014 at 4:26 pm02/6/2014 4:26 pm

      • 000

      I hate to say it but poor people are largely so because their parenting is bad, so that’s really what they are missing. So I am for Taxpayer Subsidized Parenting, if it has results. What I don’t want is to spend all this money and have it just be seen as status quo, unionized pre-school teachers, nothing changes, no one is surprised. I’m for the spending on tutors, if you really teach kids to study 15-30 hours a week and turn off the TV and most important, not be like their parents. Any alternative influence to terrible parents is a good thing and worth the money. Taxpayer subsidized housing, no, if you divorce, drop out, you should live in a slum, there should be a cost, but we should teach kids to not repeat their parents’ mistakes and collect child support.

      As for the number of kids, soon our birth rate will be too low, already happened in Europe and Japan. We need to have more deductions for children and tax the childless more to pay for helping kids. We need children, and we need them to become good.

  25. Paul Muench on Feb 6, 2014 at 4:49 am02/6/2014 4:49 am

    • 000

    Does citizenship effect access to these programs?

Template last modified: