Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Which facts? I'm all ears.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
You still have it backwards. Funding is a symptom. Read Williams article again.
I get his point and I don't disagree with it. A healthier tax base would provide more money to impoverished schools. But I don't buy that it's nearly enough to solve the problem. And I don't see him making that claim, so I have no argument with him.
My issue is that the entire mechanism is flawed. School funding shouldn't be as disparate as the wealth of the local taxpayers who fund it. States should play a more active role in closing the funding inequality gap. That's a much easier lever to pull than hoping an increased police presence will bring about fundamental change within the community which will then spill over into a healthier school system.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Which facts? I'm all ears.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
You still have it backwards. Funding is a symptom. Read Williams article again.
I get his point and I don't disagree with it. A healthier tax base would provide more money to impoverished schools. But I don't buy that it's nearly enough to solve the problem. And I don't see him making that claim, so I have no argument with him.
My issue is that the entire mechanism is flawed. School funding shouldn't be as disparate as the wealth of the local taxpayers who fund it. States should play a more active role in closing the funding inequality gap. That's a much easier lever to pull than hoping an increased police presence will bring about fundamental change within the community which will then spill over into a healthier school system.
Sounds like school choice and vouchers would help.
Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.
Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.
Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.
Agreed. The teachers unions are another huge obstacle to quality education.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Which facts? I'm all ears.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
Dude. You seriously have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Do you have kids in economically diverse public schools? If you did, you'd know what you're saying is bullshit.
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.
Yep. The entire reason there is a lack of tax base is because 3/4 of the children in the black community are born without a father. You will never get liberals to ever discuss this point. Ever. They know it is a loser for them.
The distractions, violence and lack of interest in education in the South side of Atlanta is astounding. In 30 years it has gone from one of the best school districts in the state to the worst. That follows exactly the demographic change. Money was not the issue. Children having children with no man in the house was and continues to be the issue.
Now we will hear crickets from the liberals. They aren't really interested in solving this issue. They make themselves FEEL good by heartlessly throwing dollars at it and ignoring the root cause.
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.
Yep. The entire reason there is a lack of tax base is because 3/4 of the children in the black community are born without a father. You will never get liberals to ever discuss this point. Ever. They know it is a loser for them.
The distractions, violence and lack of interest in education in the South side of Atlanta is astounding. In 30 years it has gone from one of the best school districts in the state to the worst. That follows exactly the demographic change. Money was not the issue. Children having children with no man in the house was and continues to be the issue.
Now we will hear crickets from the liberals. They aren't really interested in solving this issue. They make themselves FEEL good by heartlessly throwing dollars at it and ignoring the root cause.
So women in the black community primarily get pregnant by artificial insemination? Chinteresting stat you have there.
Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.
This. The Teachers Unions have done more to screw kids out of a good education than any other force ever. Absolute joke. Fuck them.
Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.
This. The Teachers Unions have done more to screw kids out of a good education than any other force ever. Absolute joke. Fuck them.
The fucking teachers' union. Fuck the fucking NEA and WEA....and every EA in the fucking country.
Teacher's union and public employee unions. Total bullshit.
And both of the Throbber's two dads were teachers. They're both rolling over in their graves at the abhorrent state of public education. One of my two dads (the Korean vet) would take some of these incompetent fuck teachers that should be fired for breathing out behind the teachers lounge and beat the fuck out of them. The old teachers policed their own - Greatest Generation hazing style. They didn't need any goddamned union protection or intervention.
Some people need to inform themselves of the real world test case where your theory was tested GreenRiver.
For more than a decade, the Kansas City district got more money per pupil than any other of the 280 major school districts in the country. Yet in spite of having perhaps the finest facilities of any school district its size in the country, nothing changed. Test scores stayed put, the three-grade-level achievement gap between blacks and whites did not change, and the dropout rate went up, not down.
There have been mountains of scholarly studies done on this case. It's one of things turned me away from being a Rat. It's not a lack of money that causes crappy results.
Utah is a state that spends less than half of what is spent per pupil in DC and Chicago yet they routinely beat both of those districts when you compare grades and test scores.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
You're right about education being a prescription to the problem but you're dead wrong about a lack of funding being responsible for the education disparity.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
Please read that article I linked to regarding the Kansas City school system. Poorly funded schools isn't the problem.
I sent my kids to private school and it was expensive. Yet the amount of money spent per classroom was a many times less than the public schools which at that time was 280K per class. Private had much better educational outcomes.
I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people.
The programs Reagan cut were not helping black people. They were trapping them in shitty buildings, neighborhoods and schools for eternity.
It would sure be nice if he identified these "programs" that were helping black people that Reagan cut. But I guess that was expecting too much from him.
Comments
My issue is that the entire mechanism is flawed. School funding shouldn't be as disparate as the wealth of the local taxpayers who fund it. States should play a more active role in closing the funding inequality gap. That's a much easier lever to pull than hoping an increased police presence will bring about fundamental change within the community which will then spill over into a healthier school system.
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.
Yep. The entire reason there is a lack of tax base is because 3/4 of the children in the black community are born without a father. You will never get liberals to ever discuss this point. Ever. They know it is a loser for them.
The distractions, violence and lack of interest in education in the South side of Atlanta is astounding. In 30 years it has gone from one of the best school districts in the state to the worst. That follows exactly the demographic change. Money was not the issue. Children having children with no man in the house was and continues to be the issue.
Now we will hear crickets from the liberals. They aren't really interested in solving this issue. They make themselves FEEL good by heartlessly throwing dollars at it and ignoring the root cause.
Yep. The entire reason there is a lack of tax base is because 3/4 of the children in the black community are born without a father. You will never get liberals to ever discuss this point. Ever. They know it is a loser for them.
The distractions, violence and lack of interest in education in the South side of Atlanta is astounding. In 30 years it has gone from one of the best school districts in the state to the worst. That follows exactly the demographic change. Money was not the issue. Children having children with no man in the house was and continues to be the issue.
Now we will hear crickets from the liberals. They aren't really interested in solving this issue. They make themselves FEEL good by heartlessly throwing dollars at it and ignoring the root cause.
So women in the black community primarily get pregnant by artificial insemination? Chinteresting stat you have there.
Also, learn how to quote.
Teacher's union and public employee unions. Total bullshit.
And both of the Throbber's two dads were teachers. They're both rolling over in their graves at the abhorrent state of public education. One of my two dads (the Korean vet) would take some of these incompetent fuck teachers that should be fired for breathing out behind the teachers lounge and beat the fuck out of them. The old teachers policed their own - Greatest Generation hazing style. They didn't need any goddamned union protection or intervention.
For more than a decade, the Kansas City district got more money per pupil than any other of the 280 major school districts in the country. Yet in spite of having perhaps the finest facilities of any school district its size in the country, nothing changed. Test scores stayed put, the three-grade-level achievement gap between blacks and whites did not change, and the dropout rate went up, not down.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-costly-educational-failure
There have been mountains of scholarly studies done on this case. It's one of things turned me away from being a Rat. It's not a lack of money that causes crappy results.
Utah is a state that spends less than half of what is spent per pupil in DC and Chicago yet they routinely beat both of those districts when you compare grades and test scores.
The biggest problem was white teachers with low expectations. And bored kids