Unequal childhoods and unequal adulthoods

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xq_iCMgP2Q

It will take about an hour to watch this lecture by Annette Lareau as she follows up her original research (early 2000s) on children in middle class and working class families, with how they did as young adults. I’d noticed in stores how differently some parents talk to their children (who may be in the shopping cart).  Although these days, they may be talking on the phone!  Often I wish they’d just shut up.  My goodness, they talk and talk and talk.  But some don’t.  Low income parents talk much less to their children, and by the time kids get to school there is an enormous gap in vocabulary.  But her research goes a lot deeper—about how middle class families “untie knots,” research ways to do things better, get the better school, or teacher, or activity. They have different social networks, they marry different people, and live in different neighborhoods which have different schools.

It’s worth watching.  But I don’t buy any government solution for this which we’ll hear from the academics.   The common complaint will increasingly be “white privilege,” but Lareau found similar attitudes in black and white families who are in the same socio-economic class. Fathers are more likely to be present in the middle class families; parents have more education; more sibling rivalry in middle class families; more talking; more boredom among middle class kids; and middle class kids stay “younger” longer with fewer responsibilities.  Race was not as big an issue as values and attitudes. Many middle class teaching approaches are the opposite of what works with low income kids. Drilling and memorization work well for them—just not for the teachers. Immigrant parents seem to have stronger academic standards for their children which may be lost by the 3rd generation.

Blame the job creators

If you’ve raised a family or taught in a classroom you know that trying to make things “fair” is the first step in creating jealousy and unhappiness.  When you start that you have everyone checking the size of her slice of the pie or the award for being the best speller or the fastest runner, especially if Johnny came in 2nd or 3rd.  Then to really hype the hate, start comparing the two or three or groups, and complain and gripe about the achievers.  Oh yes, that really works.

“The US unemployment rate has been pretty lousy for a while. Luckily, no one blames President Obama for this, as the recent election showed. And why should they? The government has done everything right: It enacted a huge stimulus, built infrastructure, passed ObamaCare to make sure employees are healthy and it supplied businesses with millions and millions of people just standing around waiting for work.

So if the government has done its part, and there still aren’t enough jobs, then who should we blame? Obviously, it’s the fault of those lazy, good-for-nothing businesses and job creators.”

Read more here.

Class warfare in a graph—the Buffett rule

The tiny, almost invisible smudge at the top is the Buffett reduction of the deficit. This nonsense us purely to create anger and hostility toward successful people and lie about how much they actually do pay in taxes.

If Congress would stop acting pious

maybe I could get my trip log finished. Today WSJ confirmed the "outrageous" bonuses that members of Congress have received from AIG in the form of campaign support, with Chris Dodd being the all time leader. Also, the "bonuses" that executives at the failed Fannie and Fred have received while helping prop up people who should have never bought homes. If ever a government official should fall on his sword behind Geithner, it ought to be this phony, pious, pompous player. He's chair of the Senate banking committee and was taking money from the people he regulates. That's a wide rest room stance, don't you think? A bit more serious than overtures from a gay guy in the next stall for which "outraged" Dems tried to push out a Republican. Dodd was receiving payments from the very executives of the financial products division of AIG (the one that lost so much) he was castigating.

If Republicans are supposed to be the evil, rich guys, the greedy capitalists, why do large companies contribute so heavily to the Democrats? AIG used to distribute campaign money evenly to both parties--but since 2004 according to WSJ, like many corporations, have been swinging over to the Democrats. Capitalism doesn't need a party or a government system to survive except for the small guy--the big capitalists do well in China, in Russia and in Sweden. Al Gore is making money on this global warming scam in all countries. The idea is to make money. George Soros for all his communist drivel, is an ardent capitalist. The guys at the top of ACORN probably have fat investments and they've invested heavily in Democrats too--especially the President who is indebted to them for their success in getting out the bussed-over-state-lines vote. Power and wealth know no party loyalty.

What capitalists need in the USA are legal ways to destroy the competition, and what better way than through regulation and tricky tax codes? (cap and trade, pollution, safety, set-backs, green spaces, etc.) That's where the Democrats excel and they do it by hyping the taxpayer with phony outrage and classism, pitting lower against upper class, rich again poor. "Working people" against--who; certainly not against those who don't work--that would be the welfare class--but against the successful who paid through the nose for their educations and work 80 hours a week to get to their $250,000 a year jobs.