On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will need to evolve. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
Sort of - asians are generally hard working and value self reliance and family values, but the young generations of 10 years ago (my generation, basically) and the generations since have become probably one of the most internet savvy group of anyone today. In addition, the asian groups value education (mathematics, sciences), and many are wary of anti-intellectualism. So we're a young group (our parents aren't going to vote), that goes on the internet a lot, value education, dislike anti-intellectualism (because it degrades what we value), and live in states like California and New York.
I've met right leaning asians - they generally seem closer to centrist (well, centrist in America, anyways). I'm somewhat left in economic policies and I am very left on social policies.
On September 20 2012 14:16 Souma wrote: I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
On top of the current anti-intellectual climate in the GOP, my guess would be that most "other" ethnic groups are put off by the party base's lean towards white Christian nationalism.
With that in mind, it's notable that the votes of Asian Americans are split a lot more evenly than Latinos or Blacks. So they do look like a sensible target for the GOP to expand its demographics. The party could further help themselves by opening up to high-skilled immigration, much of which would come from Asia.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
That, strictly speaking, is fantasy of course. But if we made smart reforms to the entitlement programs and brought military spending back even to 2004 levels, we could easily afford to pay these people more money. (yes, teachers/etc are employed through the states, but if we think of how much aggregate government spending Americans are willing to tolerate, this matters. also the federal gov't could subsidize state spending on these jobs.)
I'm Asian, Center-left. But if the right candidate came along with reasonable policies, I could flip.
I vote based on the quality and competence of candidate and their policies, and try to ignore party affiliation.
And at least in Canada, I think there is an overall wariness of anti-intellectualism among young voters. Any politician in Canada that denied climate science or evolution would be a non-starter.
On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote: [quote]
Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers?
The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states).
It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state.
Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said.
Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas.
Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning.
Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed.
Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican.
Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example.
My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats.
The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers.
Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo.
Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point.
Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point.
My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here.
I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue.
How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
It's not true because those 47% are not all Democrats, which he stated when he said he could never win their votes. Little did he know, a huge chunk of that 47% are Republicans.
Here is a video from TYT explaining it a bit more indepth
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
Sort of - asians are generally hard working and value self reliance and family values, but the young generations of 10 years ago (my generation, basically) and the generations since have become probably one of the most internet savvy group of anyone today. In addition, the asian groups value education (mathematics, sciences), and many are wary of anti-intellectualism. So we're a young group (our parents aren't going to vote), that goes on the internet a lot, value education, dislike anti-intellectualism (because it degrades what we value), and live in states like California and New York.
I've met right leaning asians - they generally seem closer to centrist (well, centrist in America, anyways). I'm somewhat left in economic policies and I am very left on social policies.
Growing up I was superrr conservative. I remember in my AP Government class, our teacher had us line up from most conservative to most liberal, and I was either the most conservative or second-most conservative in the class (don't remember too well). I was high on individualism and retaining the spoils of success all to myself. It wasn't until I got into college that I started softening as I educated myself more on politics and the world. I think the nail in the coffin was when I studied in Japan for a year and was enlightened by proponents of collectivism, social policies, and great primary education. There's a world of difference when you live in a society in which teachers are an esteemed profession and the populace respects and cares for each other.
On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote: [quote]
It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state.
Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said.
Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas.
Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning.
Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed.
Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican.
Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example.
My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats.
The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers.
Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo.
Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point.
Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point.
My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here.
I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue.
How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
It's not true because those 47% are not all Democrats, which he stated when he said he could never win their votes. Little did he know, a huge chunk of that 47% are Republicans.
On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote: [quote]
It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state.
Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said.
Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas.
Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning.
Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed.
Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican.
Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example.
My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats.
The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers.
Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo.
Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point.
Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point.
My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here.
I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue.
How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
It's not true because those 47% are not all Democrats, which he stated when he said he could never win their votes. Little did he know, a huge chunk of that 47% are Republicans.
Here is a video from TYT explaining it a bit more indepth
great video, but I think he's misleading about Romney's comments on middle class, I think he said 200k-250k and less, not 200k-250k. Still outlandish, but yeah Romney, what a guy lol.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Not every child needs to go to college! There's no reason they can't be trained at 15 or 16 in technical vocations as opposed to at a community college when they're 18.
Finally, we do need more qualified teachers teaching the subject they majored in in college. I saw a study someplace (that I can't find at the moment) that among college graduates that the major with the lowest incoming SAT scores are Education majors. We need to figure out how to stop that trend.
Good luck getting some of this past the teacher's unions though.
Don't get me started on how over medicated our kids are and that hurts education as well. How about we stop cutting back recess and let the kids get out and run around instead of medicating them when they act up in class?
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Oh, and on the socioeconomic issues you're absolutely correct. Parents aren't nearly as involved as they were in my time. I actually think this has been one of the major downfalls with the changes in the American family. It used to be that many kids had a stay at home (mainly moms) parent but these days you need almost two parents working to pay for a family.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Maybe some of our European friends can elaborate, but I know that it used to be the case in Germany that they had high schools for university prep and for vocations. After training at a vocational school you would go into a paid apprenticeship for your chosen field and after some more time you're in a good middle class job.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a country that all kids should go to college and somehow working as a plumber, HVAC, etc. is somehow being lesser. Some kids just aren't cut out for college, and that's ok. It's part of the reason we see so many remedial classes taught in colleges.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Maybe some of our European friends can elaborate, but I know that it used to be the case in Germany that they had high schools for university prep and for vocations. After training at a vocational school you would go into a paid apprenticeship for your chosen field and after some more time you're in a good middle class job.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a country that all kids should go to college and somehow working as a plumber, HVAC, etc. is somehow being lesser. Some kids just aren't cut out for college, and that's ok. It's part of the reason we see so many remedial classes taught in colleges.
I agree, it would be best to have different paths available for different people. If we could implement vocational school -> apprenticeships into the system while retaining the college system (and implementing more opportunities for students to get more hands-on experience in their field) it would be great. I mean, right now we have schools like ITT Tech and stuff, but honestly, if a kid knows at 16 what he wants to do in life and that path can be achieved outside of college, I don't see the point of holding him back any longer.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Maybe some of our European friends can elaborate, but I know that it used to be the case in Germany that they had high schools for university prep and for vocations. After training at a vocational school you would go into a paid apprenticeship for your chosen field and after some more time you're in a good middle class job.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a country that all kids should go to college and somehow working as a plumber, HVAC, etc. is somehow being lesser. Some kids just aren't cut out for college, and that's ok. It's part of the reason we see so many remedial classes taught in colleges.
I strongly disagree with the German system. It basically sorts kids out at a young age and sends them the message "you can't do that" if they don't make it into Gymnasium... It disenfranchises kids with worse family backgrounds at a young age. There is an obvious link between school performance at the younger ages and family situations.
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Maybe some of our European friends can elaborate, but I know that it used to be the case in Germany that they had high schools for university prep and for vocations. After training at a vocational school you would go into a paid apprenticeship for your chosen field and after some more time you're in a good middle class job.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a country that all kids should go to college and somehow working as a plumber, HVAC, etc. is somehow being lesser. Some kids just aren't cut out for college, and that's ok. It's part of the reason we see so many remedial classes taught in colleges.
I strongly disagree with the German system. It basically sorts kids out at a young age and sends them the message "you can't do that" if they don't make it into Gymnasium... It disenfranchises kids with worse family backgrounds at a young age. There is an obvious link between school performance at the younger ages and family situations.
At what age does it do it?
edit: And does it stop them from ever going to University?
On September 20 2012 13:03 Souma wrote: On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
The trend, as they say, is the trend only till it bends. Yet it’s also true that 12 years is not so very far away. Let’s hazard two plausible scenarios.
1) Reactionary Democrats. Democrats depend hugely on public-sector unions for votes and money. Suppose the party decides to make a priority of protecting their interests and those of their retirees. Democrats may call for higher taxes on the rich to pay for these benefits, but that math does not suffice. The non-rich young will also have to pay. But the young of the 2020s will not only be poorer than the elderly. They will be ethnically different. Whereas public-sector retirees will be whiter and blacker than the total population, the young of the 2020s will be more Hispanic and Asian. Age competition will also be ethnic competition.
Could that competition be the force that shakes loose Hispanic and Asian voters from the Democratic coalition? Asian voters in particular are better educated, more affluent, and more likely to be self-employed—prime candidates for Republican recruitment. The Conservative parties in Canada and the UK have made great inroads among Asian voters. (In the Canadian election of 2010, the Conservatives won a plurality among voters who speak Chinese at home.) Could a reactionary Democratic Party at last do what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” tried and failed to do in the 2000s and move large numbers of people of color into the GOP column?
2) Upper-class Republicans. If the fiscal squeeze tightens enough, Republicans will be forced to choose between their limited government ideology and their older voting base. If they choose their ideology, they will need to locate some new voters in upper-income America. They will need to draw back to the Grand Old Party the kind of voters who defected to Barack Obama in 2008: affluent professionals, especially women, in major urban centers. This was the kind of Republicanism practiced in the 1990s by governors like Christine Todd Whitman, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and George Pataki. Such a Republicanism would not need to jettison its pro-life message, just de-emphasize it, as Democrats have, for example, de-emphasized their message on gun control.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Maybe some of our European friends can elaborate, but I know that it used to be the case in Germany that they had high schools for university prep and for vocations. After training at a vocational school you would go into a paid apprenticeship for your chosen field and after some more time you're in a good middle class job.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a country that all kids should go to college and somehow working as a plumber, HVAC, etc. is somehow being lesser. Some kids just aren't cut out for college, and that's ok. It's part of the reason we see so many remedial classes taught in colleges.
I strongly disagree with the German system. It basically sorts kids out at a young age and sends them the message "you can't do that" if they don't make it into Gymnasium... It disenfranchises kids with worse family backgrounds at a young age. There is an obvious link between school performance at the younger ages and family situations.
At what age does it do it?
edit: And does it stop them from ever going to University?
If I remember correctly: It usually happens after primary education is done, which would be around 12 years old.
And no, the selection at 12 years old doesn't stop you from going to university. It's possible (and common) for people to be switched to higher/lower levels during their first years depending on performance. Even if you were to complete a vocational high school there is always a way to reach university, but it does mean you have to catch up on several years of high school education you missed out on.
David Frum wrote a brief article talking about how demographics will change over the next 12 years, and how both parties will be evolved. He singles out Asian Americans as a key demographic.
I've always felt that Asians were more conservative ideologically. I don't think you'll find a group that's more hard-working and crazy about personal responsibility than Asians are. Not saying Republicans are more hard-working and personally responsible, but they definitely strut around like they are, and that sort of propaganda may seem enticing to Asians (which, evidently, they are not). Must be the whole intelligence thing causing them to lean left more these days.
The whole public-sector claim is an interesting twist. I'm of the opinion that teachers should be making six-figure incomes, schools should be palaces, and policemen/social workers should be making twice what they are. It's a fantasy far removed from reality in this political and social climate, though.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but that in and of itself is not going to fix our K-12 education problem. We spend more per school aged child in education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 education system needs wholesale reform not just more money.
To start, more money needs to go into the classroom and not into administrative overhead. Teachers need to be evaluated and paid on performance not seniority. The school year needs to be longer. Innovation should be encouraged and arts programs need to be refunded.
A lot of problems dealing with education are socioeconomic and also negligence on the parents side as well. There's only so much teachers can do. If teachers were paid more, however, it may make it worth it for them to extend the school year and also allow them to shoulder more responsibilities (like keeping parents in the loop as much as possible). Not to mention, if teachers were making decent income straight out of graduation, it would foster more competition for teachers and raise the level of teaching.
Like I said, fine with paying teachers more but it really shouldn't be additional money it needs to come from somewhere else.
I agree that education could use a nice reform though and evaluations/pay should only take seniority into consideration if the school benefits from that specific teacher's seniority.
We also need to get over this idea that we need to treat every child the same way. All that leads to is teachers teaching to the lowest common denominator leaving our best and middle of the road students not nearly as challenged as they should be. Students should be tested for aptitude at some point along the way and steered into tracks that will help them specialize into areas of interest and aptitude earlier. Specialization should start in High School at the latest, not your second year of college.
Your school didn't split its students up by aptitude? Mine didn't in elementary but it did in middle school and high school.
Except for Honors and AP no. Granted it's been almost 20 years since I graduated from high school so it's possible that's changed. I know that Georgia is in the process of implementing a system that has high school aged kids pick areas of interest and then focuses their classes in high school on preparing them for that but it's a year out.
At my high school, we had remedial, regular, honors and AP (and now IB). I think that is optimal at the moment.
We didn't have specialization tracks in high school, and I'm not sure if there's a need for it to be honest. A lot of people do not know what they want to major in until their second-third year of college, and those who do know can get a head start during their first year of college. As it is, I think only four years of college is too little these days. Jumping into a career at 21-22 seems too early for many. I believe the number of fifth-year seniors has been increasing as well. Just my opinion though.
Maybe some of our European friends can elaborate, but I know that it used to be the case in Germany that they had high schools for university prep and for vocations. After training at a vocational school you would go into a paid apprenticeship for your chosen field and after some more time you're in a good middle class job.
Somewhere along the way we decided as a country that all kids should go to college and somehow working as a plumber, HVAC, etc. is somehow being lesser. Some kids just aren't cut out for college, and that's ok. It's part of the reason we see so many remedial classes taught in colleges.
I strongly disagree with the German system. It basically sorts kids out at a young age and sends them the message "you can't do that" if they don't make it into Gymnasium... It disenfranchises kids with worse family backgrounds at a young age. There is an obvious link between school performance at the younger ages and family situations.
At what age does it do it?
edit: And does it stop them from ever going to University?
If I remember correctly: It usually happens after primary education is done, which would be around 12 years old.
And no, the selection at 12 years old doesn't stop you from going to university. It's possible (and common) for people to be switched to higher/lower levels during their first years depending on performance. Even if you were to complete a vocational high school there is always a way to reach university, but it does mean you have to catch up on several years of high school education you missed out on.
Oof, 12-years-old is way too young. I was thinking more around the age of 16 or even 18.
EPT
