EMA - Education Maintainance Allowance

[GGT]

[...]Society wants people to graduate fast, because we value experts more than the people behind the grill at McDonald's.[...]

This, in itself, is problematic. Not valuing experts more, but wanting kids to graduate fast.

[Nessus]

It's part of the inverting age pyramid problem, over here.

[GGT]

It's part of our problem, too. We want university graduates in their early 20's to enter the job market and pay taxes for four or more decades....mostly to support the pensioners and retirees relying on tax dollars. But we don't have enough jobs for all the new grads and young people. Lots of folks could retire at age 55-60 and open up a position for a younger person. But they're reluctant to retire and live in the gap years before SS or Medicare kicks in. Really, only a small percentage can afford to do that.

Nice paradox. Working longer (advanced retirement ages) shrinks available jobs for youth, then youth has to work even longer.

[RandBlade]

To any employer in certain fields, you mean. In others, it can be a minus instead of a plus on the CV if you've spent time in fast food instead of doing summer classes. Just as in some fields it's better to stay silent about your PhD and just present yourself as a master's degree.

There's a difference there, you said "instead of". I've specifically referred to Part-Time jobs, there are plenty of people (in all fields) who can do both. I don't know anyone in any field who would look at two candidates with the exact same academic record but one did nothing but their studies and the other did a part-time job who wouldn't view the one with the part-time job and the excellent academic records as the better candidate. Being able to juggle academia and work demonstrates a level of personal planning and organisation on top of that required just for the course/job individually.

In addition, time spent in part-time jobs or what have you implicitly means less time spent on studies. Which means you graduate later rather than sooner. Now of course no one can study effectively for 16 hours a day, but I'd argue they get less of their 8 hours in the books if they've spent another 8 behind the grill or counter.

Except most undergraduate uni or high school courses go at a linear rate. You can't normally advance twice as fast as someone else. For postgraduate studies you can indeed, but then there are also generally plenty of post-grad-specific part-time work out there, including tutoring the undergrads.

Society wants people to graduate fast, because we value experts more than the people behind the grill at McDonald's.

But still people can one to fund the other.

Of course with pre-uni students their graduation time is more or less dictated beforehand, but why do we bother keeping them in the class room if they're not interested, or don't have enough time to do home-work in-depth?

I'm not sure if you mean High School or Undergrad here. They should ideally stay in the class-room because an education is valuable, but if they're that disinterested then I don't think they should be bribed just to stay in the classroom - where they're probably a hinderance to the others.

Of course, that is a Learned Behavior or Attitude. You can ignore what others are experiencing, and try to pretend ignorance because it doesn't match up with your personal perspective....or you can acknowledge the disparity. It's that gap where public policy loses traction.

So its not sensible in your opinion to give those people more money than they need as it will just be wasted, is that what you're saying?

How about this as a solution: Cut the welfare cheque and they'd have to get some self-discipline.

I'd have thought they'd stay in school in order to get that booze-money

Hope not.

Look, you can roll your eyes all you like, but that's how many people think/feel. I'm not saying it's wise. Saving for a rainy day doesn't guarantee awesomeness when the rain comes, and after you get drenched for the third time it's like why bother as for shoes vs. hunger, well, hey, you know that people can prioritise different things. Or at least you should know that I personally don't care for shoes and abhor hunger, some people don't think hunger is that big a deal but enjoy getting feelgoods from having beautiful (ish) shoes.

So again, there's no point giving too much welfare to someone in your opinion as it will be blown as they lack self-control. Instead we need to find a way to get some self-discipline involved?

Of course it is, and that value has to be weighed against the possible negative impact of work (during the semester) on studying. It's not unknown for things to have both pros and cons

Of course, and people who can balance both are to be valued.

EDIT: GGT it is garbage to think that for every job someone fills that's one less job for someone else, there is a multiplier effect to work. I (and everyone else) rely upon a plethora of other people/companies, a growing economy provides room for more jobs.

[GGT]

So its not sensible in your opinion to give those people more money than they need as it will just be wasted, is that what you're saying?

Now you're grouping all parents into one group. What I'm trying to say is that welfare is necessary, but it should make sense to target certain groups in certain ways. It shouldn't just be giving money to parents to spend as they see fit, but also teaching Life Skills. That kind of thing not all children get at home (because their parents didn't get it either), and probably don't get in school, either.

Example: Birth Control. Our public schools may require Life Science and include sex-ed, but it's usually limited to one year in elementary school, with sex-ed being a two-week topic. They may mandate one semester of Health and Biology, but that's probably another secondary mention for birth control or sexuality.

That's not enough. Some of the more effective classes have been semester-long studies under things titled "Family Life" or "Life Skills". Those are the courses that incorporate budget management with family planning and career goals. The programs that assign a fake baby that teens have to care for 24/7, 7 days a week, for 3 months. (Some do an abbreviated version with chicken eggs but it's not as effective.)

Our school district doesn't require ANY type of personal finance or money management course. My kids got those things from Boy Scouts, and community efforts like the Jaycees or Rotary Club or Toastmasters. They both opted to take Home Economics electives, but none of that involved Budget Management (it was more learning to operate a sewing machine or cook a meal).

EDIT: GGT it is garbage to think that for every job someone fills that's one less job for someone else, there is a multiplier effect to work. I (and everyone else) rely upon a plethora of other people/companies, a growing economy provides room for more jobs.

Our US economy isn't really growing, though. It's trying to tread water and endure in a changing world, and not holding up so well. None of the "experts" can say what to do during the unemployed or underemployed *years* while we wait for the next great game changer. Perhaps that won't arrive for another one or two generations? Our system and its experts haven't described what "enduring" a new normal could mean. They just keep talking about the possibility of GDP growth 5% or more, like it's a never-ending story of GROWTH like post WWII that set our standards.

IMO it's time we talk about what years of plateau looks like, as a new normal. But to many that means lowering our pre-conceived standards. Enduring or maintaining a balance just isn't good enough, they want exponential leading growth year after year. No way to compete with China if that's the definition of successful society.

[Aimless]

So again, there's no point giving too much welfare to someone in your opinion as it will be blown as they lack self-control.

What I'm trying to say is that they should get their welfare but also get the other help they need so that the welfare money isn't wasted. That other help may be to give them reason to hope/believe in a better future for themselves, help with whatever psychiatric problems they may have, pedagogical interventions, respect and understanding and a dignified way out. That is, if the idea is to get people to lead fulfilling and sustainable lives. If the idea is to simply save some cash in the short term through accountancy then I suppose you can limit yourself to just scrapping welfare. Accountancy is among the lowest of human endeavours however

Of course, and people who can balance both are to be valued.

Sure but it doesn't follow from that that people who have difficulties doing so should be trashed for being irredeemable useless scum.

[RandBlade]

I don't see anyone bandying about phrases like "irredeemable useless scum".

[Nessus]

That is in your heart of hearts, however

[GGT]

Rand, you post in a way that appears to say "people on welfare are useless scum, a parasitic scum we must cleanse from our nation".

Like boats that scrub algae and mollusks from their hull, scrubbing them clean in dry dock, expecting better or faster performance.

Thing is, neither of those things change how boats move in the water. Sailcloths will be ripped to shreds, and masts broken by winds, long before any hull is breached or rendered inoperable by algae scum or mollusk build-up. Especially on modern motors.

[RandBlade]

I don't believe that and never said that.

I don't believe welfare works. I believe that some on welfare are useless scum, but just small proportion.

[Nessus]

I believe that some on welfare are useless scum, but just small proportion.

I believe everyone who makes advertisements for a living is useless scum, but I don't expect legislation against them anytime soon

[GGT]

I don't believe that and never said that.

I don't believe welfare works. I believe that some on welfare are useless scum, but just small proportion.

Seems to me you've done a jolly good job of conflating (failed) welfare with its (failed) recipients. You're quite willing to lay blame on welfare recipients, with associated derogatory terms. But not so willing or vocal to call the (failed) legislators who designed your whole (failed) system the same Lazy Scum.

[RandBlade]

I believe everyone who makes advertisements for a living is useless scum, but I don't expect legislation against them anytime soon

Legislation against welfare recipients, don't make me laugh. Cutting a free cheque you give someone for absolutely nothing in return isn't legislation against them.

Seems to me you've done a jolly good job of conflating (failed) welfare with its (failed) recipients. You're quite willing to lay blame on welfare recipients, with associated derogatory terms. But not so willing or vocal to call the (failed) legislators who designed your whole (failed) system the same Lazy Scum.

The people who deliberately abuse the system are scum, not victims. You disagree?

[GGT]

The people who deliberately abuse the system are scum, not victims. You disagree?

I agree that those who deliberately abuse ANY system are scummy people with crappy morals. But I try not to lump everyone in that amorphous group; I try to think of people as innocent until proven guilty. I also give a large degree of presumed innocence (or victimhood) to people who have been raised in an ineffectual system.

I try not to blame the victims. But that's what many are---victims.

(FYI, I didn't used to have this attitude, until working with real people, and seeing how theory or policy just didn't work so well in real life.)

[Asmodian]

Does this stipend go directly to the kids? or is it touched by their parents. It really does not make much sense to me to give school kids pocket money, what is the stated goals of this program? In Switzerland families with kids receive something like 150 CHF er month per kid from the government, regardless of their income, I suppose the goal of that is to encourage families to have kids and to compensate somewhat the costs associated with them.
In Russia there is a stipend that is payed to university level students, but they have to get in to be accepted first, i.e. pass a difficult acceptance exams. (The idea behind that is at that age the family is no longer supporting them, and they wont have time to work if they actually want to obtain their diploma.)

Now giving money directly to underage school kids, does not make much sense to me. At the very least it should go to the parents. But looking at the numbers I don't see how deleting this program is supposed to solve the budget difficulties, unless that is one of a 100 being cut.

[Asmodian]

"The idea behind that is at that age the family is no longer supporting them, and they wont have time to work if they actually want to obtain their diploma" - Before someone points out tat it is possible to work and get your degree, that may be true now that the education system is plummeting to meet the western standards, it was not true before.

[RandBlade]

I agree that those who deliberately abuse ANY system are scummy people with crappy morals. But I try not to lump everyone in that amorphous group; I try to think of people as innocent until proven guilty. I also give a large degree of presumed innocence (or victimhood) to people who have been raised in an ineffectual system.

Yes, but I know far too many who are proven guilty in my eyes.

I try not to blame the victims. But that's what many are---victims.

No they're not. The victims are those poor people who are working and struggling to make ends meet to support their own families and the families of those to laxy to work.

(FYI, I didn't used to have this attitude, until working with real people, and seeing how theory or policy just didn't work so well in real life.)

My views are shaped from real life.

[rumrunner]

Giving money to kids to stay in school is a foolish waste. On the other hand, if you want to pay them for getting good grades, say a >2.5 gpa, then also make them earn it by tutoring the the supposedly "stupider" kids in jeopardy of flunking. I use the 2.5 gpa as an example that would put more tutors "on the market" than 3.0 would. BTW, my youngest, a sophomore in H.S. is currently holding 3.56 gpa. Off-topic I know, but any opportunity to brag (on her behalf, of course).