We're friends with a family who "unschools". I've known people in public, private, and online schools as well as homeschool & unschooling. I really can't say that any one is definitively better than any other. It really depends upon the child and the parent. There are some kids who need to be away from their parents and some who just get lost in a traditional school and homeschooling/unschooling gives them a much better education.
For the family I know, "unschool" isn't really a good description of what they do. They don't have a structured day, but she (the mother/teacher) makes sure they are surrounded by educational toys and are constantly being challenged in some way or another. They don't just sit & watch TV or play video games all day. She spends a tremendous amount of energy researching different toys, preparing experiments, reviewing books, planning educational field trips, and reading to her children. The kids are younger (4th grade or lower) but they don't seem to be any further behind than any other kids and in some aspects they are very advanced. Our state requires testing every year to homeschool and they've always passed without problems so they are learning something.
I couldn't do it, but it works for them. I don't know if she'll continue as they get older or switch to a more traditional method. Her biggest goal is to get them accustomed to learning & researching things for themselves and (so far) it seems to be working very well.
Regardless if it would actually work, I'll predict that...
- We spend millions of dollars in environmental impact studies over several years before anything actually ever starts.
- When/if the environmental impact studies are done, we'll spend millions in litigation when people are told that the government is forcing them to sell their house to put in the rail.
- When/if the government is able to purchase the houses being demolished, we'll spend years in litigation for the houses next to the track when they realize it will be noisy and their houses will be devalued.
- When/if the lawsuits are done we'll begin asking for bids. Massive accusations of corruptions will happen from everyone against everyone else and will prompt lots of journalists to run investigative stories. In the end we'll waste an incredible amount of time & energy pointing fingers & complaining that someone is wasting money.
- Now, assuming we get this far we can begin construction. Massive cost overruns will happen. They always do.
- Somewhere along one of these lines a rare species of rat or tree will be found, prompting further environmental studies and the possibility of either rerouting the rail or moving the rat (yes, I've seen this happen).
- Construction on a few lines will finish and people will be able to ride the train. The people in favor of the train will claim victory if two people ride it. People opposed to the train will say it is a failure if the cars are not packed.
- Eventually everything (probably) will be finished. It will probably work in some places and be a complete waste in others. The people who use it will call the ones who don't nasty names. People who don't use it will call the people who do use it nasty names. People who live near it will hate it because of the noise. People who don't live near it will complain it is too far to be useful.
Now, keep in mind we're talking about a project that will need to be funded heavily. It will also probably need to be subsidized (most public transportation does). It will also require the support of administrations following this one and that will be challenging. I have no idea what the administration will look like in 4 years, much less 14 years.
You also have the problem is that most of the time railroads are not in use. Trains just don't run constantly and when they are in use they are only in use a short period. I'm not saying that they can't haul a lot of people or material, just that you only run one train every few hours between cities.
It isn't like an interstate that pretty much always has traffic and anyone who wants can easily use it. I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a fact. This gives people who don't like them a really nice thing to point at and say "see, nobody uses it, so why are we paying for it?"
I have my doubts that it will work, but if we are going to build it I hope it works better than my wildest dream. I'm also afraid that it will be like local mass transit where there is constantly a fight to keep the funding. If at any point we cut the funding we're talking about a lot of wasted money.
People would prefer to have less stuff, as long as they have more stuff than the neighbors.
This is a very big part of the problem. This is why a lot of people who make good incomes live paycheck to paycheck. "Keeping up with the neighbors" is expensive.
It really depends on what your workload is and what you are trying to accomplish. I've seen Linux on the mainframe be a horrible thing and I've seen it be a pretty cool thing that worked wonderfully. If you are trying to do heavy math processing on a mainframe then it probably won't get you the bang for your money. On the other hand, heavy IO will probably work very well. You also get the benefit of being able to run hundreds (or even thousands) of Linux guests on one single server. That conserves physical space, electricity, software license costs, and the hardware is extremely reliable (which is part of the reason it is so expensive). It also makes disaster recovery much more straight forward.
Even IBM will tell you that there are some applications that you should not run on a zSeries processor. I've been in meetings where IBM has said that some types of workload will not perform well on a zSeries processor and you should consider Intel or some other platform.
There is no "one size fits all". Anyone who says there is "one size" is probably selling something.
I also work in IT, but a while back I was also a part time fire fighter. I fellow I worked with got me involved with it. He made one comment that I've always remembered.
"A lot of people in this job (fire fighter) get divorced and they all blame the long shifts and the strange hours. That isn't the cause. The cause is that when they have a day off they spend it with the same guys they work with playing softball or watching T.V. instead of spending time with their spouse. Eventually their spouse realies that divorce won't be much different than their current life. They are already alone so why stay married."
I always thought that was an interesting insight and I've tried to remember it. When I have free time I make sure to spend the majority of it with my family. I've been married 11 years now and I'm probably closer to my wife than I was when I married her. Very few people can say that and I believe that advice got me there.
The one which stands out in my mind is K-12. There were also the possibility of getting programs from the state where they considered you a "charter school" similar to the Chicago one. My wife did a tremendous amount of work researching everything and talking to other families.
In the end we decided against computer based training. When he gets older (assuming we're still doing it) look at the program again. I was afraid that he would be too tempted to just click through the screens. I was afraid he'd be done with a school day in 15 minutes and think he could go play.
We still go to the library and check out some of the educational software like Reader Rabbit or Jump Start and he enjoys them, but they are just a supplement.
If you don't like computer ones, there are video and satellite based homeschooling programs too. Bob Jones is one, but I know there are others. We tried the Bob Jones video program to use as a supplement. It is nice but watching TV isn't the best way for my son to learn. His mind wanders too easily to concentrate on a TV show. It is a nice supplement, but just a supplement. We tend to use them on days where he is having a bad day.
If you want to post a message to me directly I'd be glad to help answer any other questions.
That was actually one of my biggest concerns when my wife approached me with the idea. When he was a few years younger he was much much worse at adapting to new situations than he is now. When he was 5 he was very shy and I was afraid this would make it worse. When he was faced with a conflict or had to deal with something he didn't like he would basically just shut down and not respond. Often he would go to a corner and cry. I was very concerned that homeschooling would make it worse.
Quite the opposite has happened. He has other activities outside of the home where he is has been confronted by others not "culled" by us. Depending on the situation he stands up for himself better than I would have at his age (he's only 7). When he has team sports or he has co-ops with other homeschooling families he constantly meets different kids. Some of them becomes friends with and others he has to deal with. About the only thing he hasn't had to deal with is long-term conflict (i.e. a school year bully). I don't know how he would deal with that. I'm guessing he would find a way.
Our neighbor's son tried to bully him around, but he chose not to play with him for a while. Then he started to push back and the bully backed down. Since then the have get along fine and play together often. We didn't interefere on purpose because I wanted him to deal with it himself. That isn't the same as a year-long bully that refuses to back down but he can deal with short term issues.
Our neighbor's son went to public school and he was constantly bullied on the bus. It got bad enough that he would feel physically ill on Sunday evenings before the week started. They tried to talk to him about it, they talked to the bus driver, they even talked to the other kids parents. Nothing helped. They wound up driving him to school several months of the year. When he started to ride the bus again the problem went away because he found a way to deal with the bully himself. I guess he just wasn't ready to do it the year before.
We put my younger son in preschool to try and solve the same problem. He has a very shy personality and it is much worse than my older son. We tried for 6 months to "acclimate" him to preschool. If anything, it made the situation worse. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the preschool, there were no conflicts with other kids, and it was only three times a week for 2 hours, but he hated it anyway and would cry every time we took him. We kept thinking "he'll adjust", but he never did. He was still pretty young at the time (not quite 4) so we pulled him out and waited.
Six months later we enrolled him in a simple sports activity. It was only 1 hour a week but he did better with that because it was much more instructor directed. There was no "just play" but they were being instructed the whole time so he felt much more confident and relaxed. He still has a very long way to go, but he is making progress. He may never be a total extravert but he does need to learn how to cope with crowds of kids.
I guess my point is that kids can & do adapt. There isn't anything magical about either homeschool or public or private school. It really depends on the kid. As a parent, I also believe that it is impossible NOT to screw up your kids. It is just a matter of keeping the damage to a minimum.:-)
We haven't decided if we'll homeschool my younger son or not. He still has 2 years until he legally needs to go to school. If it looks like it is a better fit for him then we'll send him. I have my doubts about his willingness to accept homeschool because his personality is so different than my older son. He is a different kind of kid, so it may require a different solution.
Your point about stability is a good one, but considering the school district I'm in I don't really consider public schools much more stable. Our district is large enough that he would be with a different group of kids each year anyway. They make a co
First, let me point out that I have a child who is homeschooling. He is in second grade, so we've only been doing this for 3 years. I was very cautious about this, but my wife really wanted to try it. Virtual elementary schools have been around prior to this. We looked at one when my son started first grade but decided against it.
The most common question we get about it is "what about social skills". A lot of people who homeschool make very conscious efforts to make sure their kids receive social skills. We are involved in co-ops, we do field trips with other homeschool kids, there are sporting activities, and he has other kids in the neighborhood. The best argument I heard about schools & social skills was this: teachers don't want you to be social during classes. When you were growing up were you allowed to talk in class? Of course not. You talked between classes and at lunch. Most of the social skills you received were not tought by a teacher but interaction with other kids. This can be gained outside of school too.
Yes, my son does behave different than some other kids. Some things are good and some are bad. He doesn't really understand that some questions are very awkward to ask in public, he tends to interrupt, and his patience isn't the best. On the other hand, he can talk to any adult much more easily than I ever could and he naturally asks questions if he doesn't understand something. When interacting with other kids I don't really notice a difference. He interacts with his public school & homeschool friends the same way and they play the same games.
Virtual schools have advantages & disadvantages except you get some outside support. Some parents really need that extra support because they don't feel comfortable being on their own.
The biggest benefits to non-traditional learning are the ability to go at your own pace and to change the teaching method if it doesn't work. When we started math with my son we got a really cool math program. It had blocks and videos as well as worksheets. It looked really great to me. He absolutely hated it. We tried for a few weeks and gave up. We switched to another program which had very bright and colorful worksheets but no blocks or videos. He responded much better to it and was able to learn the material much easier. Learning at your own pace is good for him too. There is no being "left behind". Until he understands the subject we don't go to the next.
That all being said, homeschooling isn't for everyone. Some kids just don't respond and need more structure. Some parents don't want the responsibility or can't be home to be the teacher. Even in virtual schools the idea isn't just "sit them in front of a computer and you are done". There is other non-computer stuff in any program I've ever seen. I can't comment on the quality of the Chicago program, but I'd imagine it is the same way. The majority of time isn't computer related. I'm sure it will be less flexible and less "go at your own pace", but that isn't necessarily bad because some kids really need the structure. It depends on the child.
Also remember that things change. The parent or the child may decide to go back to traditional schooling. People and situations change. You can always switch. All 50 states have laws permitting homeschooling. Some are more "interesting" than others, but they all allow it.
There is also one other myth I'd like to dispell. Other than social skills the second most common question is about religion. Not everyone is a religous zelot who homeschools. I'm not even remotely religious. Lots of people do it because they feel it is the best opportunity for their children and not to shelter or block their kids from the outside world.
By the way, another thing which helped convince me that it isn't a bad idea was the fact that a lot of homeschoolers are ex-teachers. You would be amazed how many ex-teachers there are doing this. Every ex-teacher I talk to says that public schools waste time and they spent the vast majority of their time on a few kids in a class.
Does the environment really win or is the problem just being moved? The electricity must come from some place. Does the power plant produce more pollution to provide the electricity?
The first failures that come to mind are... - When the Web first became popular MS planned to ignore it and provide a private service which didn't use the Internet. - Killing Unix in the corporate environment. - Killing Java. - Killing Linux. - That wonderful product MS Bob. - Taking on AOL as a service provider. - The US government in their anti-trust case. - Apache still has a larger market share.
Yes MS has had some big successes but they also fail at times. The areas they have the biggest market are where they can leverage their desktop monopoly. In areas where they compete against other big vendors and they can't use their desktop monopoly they are far less successful.
If you look at how they succeeded in the past they will have to think differently with Google. - They own file & print by tying networking into the operating system. Novel was the leader before this. - Excel & Word became popular because Windows was introduced and WordPerfect didn't see the value in Windows initially. It also helped that Word & Excel were cheaper than WordPerfect at the time and were bundled together as one product. - They defeated Netscape by not only giving away the browser but by hooking it into the OS. - Exchange is probably one of their few true successes, but it is also not a slam dunk and they got this partly through their office suite domination. There are still competitors in this space and every Exchange virus makes it more difficult for them.
I'm not saying they won't succeed but MicroSoft isn't a god and they make mistakes like any other company. As a corporation grows it becomes less flexible and as it ages it can also becomes less creative in marketing because it tends to rely on past methods which were successful.
Google is a household word now and it is already free to use. MicroSoft can't bundle a search engine into the OS and even if it does, the government is keeping an eye on them so they must be careful. Even today there was a story about MS exec commenting that they should force vendors to abandon the iPod in for MS products. They quickly said it wasn't an official company plan when someone complained to the government.
I'm not saying that they won't beat Google but it won't be an easy battle.
NASA has called in private companies before. IBM got to keep a good deal of technology they developed in the 1960s & 1970s for NASA. One of the most famous program in particular for the mainframe is JES and a version of JES is still used by every IBM mainframe system. Banks, insurance companies, and other large manufacturers still depend heavily on software initially developed to put someone on the moon. It's pretty cool when you think about it and I hope Google will get the same type of benefit from working with NASA.
Where I work we have a relatively young staff because only about 1/2 will retire in the next 10 years. At 33 years old, I'm the youngest by about 10 years. One of my co-workers told me that I'll be chained to my desk when I'm as old as she is but those chains will probably be made of gold. Whenever any vendor or customer comes on site the first thing they say is "I never see anyone your age doing mainframe work."
It is a pitty because given a fair chance I bet people would like being an admin once they got past the initial learning curve. The monitoring and automation tools are nothing short of incredible. I can tell what each program is waiting on, what data it is reading, who has higher priority, how long it has been running, how much IO it has done, and lots of other things. I can even alter the memory of the program as it is running (although I'm too chicken to do it). I can also go back in time and get this information from days ago so when I get the "it was slow yesterday" problem I can easily investigate.
I didn't learn a thing from college regarding the mainframe. College was for general logic, problem solving, and overall data structure. Everything I learned was on the job training. When I started one of the older guys said it takes at least 5 years to make a good systems programmer. Anything less and you have a dangerous person who only thinks they understand what is happening. I would have to agree.
The mainframe is really nice in some areas. It is an ego rush to fix a problem that is keeping a multi-billion doller company from shipping any new products (I did that yesterday) and the people I work with are great because they are always willing to share experience and historical knowledge. When they retire I'll miss them.
The price you pay is that many systems have 30+ years of customization in them. They are incredibly complex and very tailored so no two are exactly alike and as a systems programmer I'm expected to be the "final expert" on any problem the users can't solve. This includes finding out why a program that was written when I was three years old no longer reads a PDS properly or why a job that hasn't changed in 5 years suddenly stopped working. It can be lots of fun but it can be frustrating too especially because the bosses really don't want to hear "I don't know" for an answer and "just reboot" isn't even in their vocabulary.
Computers are not the end answer for education in schools. Computers are a tool and nothing more and should be used as such. The wrong thing to do is to substitute computer software for teachers.
Giving a calculator to someone who doesn't understand math doesn't help them. Using this type of logic, giving someone a saw and hammer makes them a master carpenter.
I'm a mainframe sysprog but I've coded on Unix & Windows. I'm also rather young (33) for a mainframe sysprog. Here are the differences.
The first difference is the difference of work running on a system. Unix & Windows development typically takes place on dedicated machines. The changes are then applied to a separate production machine. On a mainframe development & production are often the same LPAR (Logical Partition) or the same physical box. Because of this development gets the low priority. If you run out of juice on a Unix/Windows box you either get a bigger one or you cluster them together. In the mainframe you either redesign it to run more efficiently or you start shelling out $$$ for a bigger machine. Normally your only choice is the redesign.
Software on a mainframe is horribly expensive and the faster the machine the more it usually costs. This is an old way of spreading the pain of software development. The big guys pay more because their machines are faster but the smaller guys get to pay less. Imagine if MicroSoft decided to charge a lot less for Office if you ran it on a P5 instead of the newest processor? Some software on Windows is licensed by the CPU, but I've never heard of the speed of the CPU being a factor. Do you think you'd get that fancy new PC if the software would cost 10x as much?
On a mainframe software development is a slow process with lots of checks along the way. Nobody just "slams in a change" unless they are either 100% sure it will work and it fixes a critical problem that is impacting business, or they want to be fired. Banks frown heavily on downtime. Unix & Windows systems seem to be more tolerant of this (with the odd exception being email - how email became the most important application is beyond me).
Once you develop, debug, and get a mainframe program running you can usually forget about it. There are programs running on mainframes today that haven't changed in 30 years. That is a pretty good return on investment. I've dealt with both and it seems to boil down to "pay me now or pay me later". Installing stuff on a mainframe take a lot of up front work but if you do it correctly you can expect it to work well when you are done. Windows programs are easier to install and develop but you have the constant reboot issues, memory leaks, and just plain annoying mysteries to deal with.
Mainframes (in my opinion) have far far far superior system diagnostic tools. If a program is running slow I can determine if it is CPU, disk, database contention, or any other resource shortage. This is mainly because there is so much running on any given mainframe that system diagnostic tools need to be very good. The tools on Unix and Windows are good but they don't need to be as complete because the environments are far less complex.
Program debugging tools on a mainframe can be awful. Interactive debuggers are the exception, not the norm. They tend to take up CPU which drive up software costs which the finance department hates. I've seen good interactive debuggers but they suck CPU and make the finance department hate you.
Batch controls on a mainframe are far superior to Unix or Windows. This is mainly because the mainframe started life as a batch system. Once you understand and master JCL it is really a good system. Batch on Unix and especially Windows is more of an after thought. You can run batch, but the tools to monitor failures, schedule dependencies, and validate results are not as good.
A programmer must know how a program is going to run on a mainframe long before you run it. You need to know how much disk, CPU, and memory you need and how man lines of output you are going to use. If you exceed this by too much your program will be automatically canceled. This is because you are not the only one using the system and if you exceeded what you said you needed your program could have a problem. That can be painful but it stops program loops if done properly.
And Henry Ford said you could have any color car you want as long as it is black. The last time I looked, there were several different models of cars in different colors. All of them basically do the same thing, operate in a similar manner, and obey the same basic rules but nobody says we should use the same model & make of car.
I've tried several different distributions (RedHat, Fedora, SuSE, TurboLinux, Debian and several other minor distros). The biggest difference I've ever seen is in the install and upgrade process and both of these have become a thousand times easier than they were 10 years ago.
Once Linux is actually running there isn't much of a difference between the distros. RPM vs APT is probably the biggest difference in installing software and with automatic download & install utilities (yum, apt-get...) the average user doesn't need to know how things are packaged.
Some distros seem to package different software by default and some use KDE while others use Gnome but all of them operate pretty much the same. Some seem to be better suited to servers and others do better on the desktop but the actual look and feel is not very different.
The biggest difference (IMHO) is in support. Some have none and others do. If you need it depends on your preferences. I've never used a Linux support service for i386, but I did on z-Series Linux.
I understand what you are saying, but I hope it never happens. I think it is a strength that so many distros exist.
I can't look at my keys anyway
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
I use the Dvorak layout so most of the keys are in the wrong place. It drives people nuts when the borrow my PC.
In any event, most keys on a regular keyboard are the same size. If you want to prevent yourself from looking at the keys can't you just move them around so that they don't match up?
Think how easy it would make converting between metric & the archaic units of measure we use in the US. It would probably be much easier than getting the US to change to the metric system.
Actually, aside from the flag burning & Internet regulation examples, the article is quoting more of the opinions of students & teachers rather than the knowledge they have of the first amendment. Even the article you quoted is their opinion, not their understanding.
While I don't like their opinions they are just as free to have them as you or I. I'm also not surprised that a group of people who are not permitted to have all of the first amendment freedoms don't see the big deal about having them. I'd be interested in seeing how this same survey does with college age people who are not so restricted in their freedoms. I'd guess it would be different.
As for conservative vs. liberal opinions, I've seen both restrict what their kids can do. I think it is based more on parental fear rather than political opinion. For most parents, their kids freedoms are secondary to their kids safety. The easiest way (although not always the best way) to ensure their safety is to restrict their freedom.
I've dealt with IBM Software in the past. They typically lag behind in their "official" supported platforms because they need to go through a lot of tests to validate their software works as designed. When I've run into issues like this they simply say "it may work, but we haven't tested it enough yet".
That is why they pick a flavor (or two) of Linux as supported instead of saying "we support Linux". Other distros will probably work, but they only have so much time to validate & test. For a long time WebSphere (at least on z/Series hardware) was only supported on a 2.2 kernel. It ran fine on 2.4, but it wasn't officially supported.
That being said, if you do have a problem and you have a support contract IBM will work with you to solve the issue, but they don't like to make gurantees about unsupported hardware / software interacting with their stuff.
This article seems to be more for older education, but my wife read in a parenting magazine not too long ago (I don't remember which one) that recommended not relying on games & TV to teach small kids.
The thought was that books force kids to form new neurons at a much more rapid rate than games or television. Don't ask me how they measured neurons (I don't have enough to know). They also said that the moving visual & audio input can make it harder for kids to memorize new subjects because of the distractions they cause. They did say that games are a good & TV tools, but don't rely completely on them and use them in moderation.
I don't if games or good or bad, but with two small kids I can say that different kids learn differently so I guess it depends on what works best for you or your kids. I will also say that through my experience, things like counting & ABCs were learned much more quickly in books than toys (and we tried both). The games were nice, but they just wind up clicking stuff until they get the correct answer. Reading to them forced them to interact with adults who can help explain when necessary. Once they learned the stuff though, the games seemed to help reinforce it.
I'm not a Republican nor am I a Dem. I try to look at both sides & make up my own mind. Sometimes I agree with Democrats, sometimes I agree with Republicans. It just depends on the issue & the argument.
Some of the President's ideas (like SS & overhauling the tax code) I like. That said, I think Bush has a serious number of faults. He spends way too much money. I think his prescription drug program is a nightmare waiting to happen and was done purely to buy votes from the elderly. I think his environmental efforts are lacking. I think that his diplomacy needs a serious overhaul. I think his talk of a constitutional amendment for the "defense" of marriage is an absolute waste of time & the religous right are being rediculous.
As for Occam's Razor, I've heard the past 3 presidents (including Bill Clinton) claim that SS is in trouble. If SS wasn't in trouble why did John Kerry have plans to fix it? If Republicans & Democrats both say it is in trouble, odds are they are telling the truth. The only real difference I see is they disagree on how serious the problem is.
The average life expectancy as I stated it, was misleading. I apologize. The correct answer would be found here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html. Notice how the percentage of people expected to reach 65 is only slightly obove 50%. Notice how that percentage & the number of people over 65 have increased dramatically. The life expectancy has also increased (although only slightly). All these make me wonder about the setup of Social Security.
As for Republicans "hating SS", I don't believe that is the case either. I think the Democrats love to tout that the Republicans hate the elderly, but I've never seen any real evidence. To the contrary, the new presciption drug benefit is a good example of them trying to "help" the elderly & responding to their demands.
A more accurate description, IMHO, would be that Democrats are so mad over the election they won't give him credit for a single thing. I also believe if the situation was reversed Republicans would be just as mad & act the exact same way. They did act this way when Bill Clinton was first elected so they certainly can't claim they took the high road in the past. I thought the constant probing into Bill Clinton when he was in office was a stupid waste of money & nothing more than sour grapes from the Republicans.
I also think that Democrats & Republicans have differing philosophy about how to run a government, although both want to increase their control. The differene is that the Democrats want a larger government where they can directly keep control and be in power, while Republicans want their friends in business to get more power & money. I highly doubt either parties have the purest of intentions. The number one goal of anyone in office is to get re-elected, any good (or bad) they do is secondary to getting re-elected.
When Social Security was started the "retirement" age was set at 65. This age was picked because it was ABOVE the expected life of the average person. The thought was that if you made it to 65 you probably couldn't work and, to keep you from being a burdon, society had an obligation to provide you a suplement to help you get along. When Social Security was formed, most people knew they would never see any money from it. I believe the average woman is expected to make it to 85. Imagine increasing the age you can collect Social Security at to 90. How many people would be happy? That is the way it was when the system was designed.
Social Security was never designed to be a person's sole source of income. It was designed to be a suplement. Also keep in mind that people over the age of 65 are the second wealthiest demographic when taken as a whole. There is no means testing for collecting SS so everyone gets a check regardless of their need. The poorest are the ones in their 20s who are in debt with kids. These are the ones who pay for SS with every cent earned up to about $90,000.
The idea that someone just "quits working" is a relatively new thing. In past centuries you worked until you died. It isn't unusual to see someone retire at 55 today. That person could easily live 30 years into their retirement. That is almost as many years as they worked. That is a very unusual thing and has never happened in history.
About 10 years ago I saw a survey of people in college. More college students believed in UFOs then believed they would ever see a single Social Security check. I'm over 30 and have no expectation that I'll ever see a SS check. That is why I invested 15% of my pre-tax income to my 401k, I maxed out on my ROTH IRA, and contributed the maximum amount to my pension. Yes I drive an old car. Yes, I can't afford go out to eat every weekend. I don't go on expensive vacations and I don't buy the latest tech toys. That is the trade off for saving for your future. I figure when I'm 90 I'd rather eat than remember the I-Pod I owned 60 years ago.
The private contributions that Republicans are planning are VOLUNTARY. If you want you can keep your investments the same as they are now. You also can't invest everything, only a portion can be invested in private accounts. It is YOUR choice. The only thing the government is really forcing you to do is contribute. Personally I like any freedoms the government gives me. If I had my choice I'd keep every dime & opt out of SS because I think I can do better on my own. I know that won't happen, but this is the next best thing. I think it is interesting that people who complain about the Patriot Act taking away their freedoms are some of the same people complaining about getting a freedom of choice from the government.
Slashdot Mirror
We're friends with a family who "unschools". I've known people in public, private, and online schools as well as homeschool & unschooling. I really can't say that any one is definitively better than any other. It really depends upon the child and the parent. There are some kids who need to be away from their parents and some who just get lost in a traditional school and homeschooling/unschooling gives them a much better education.
For the family I know, "unschool" isn't really a good description of what they do. They don't have a structured day, but she (the mother/teacher) makes sure they are surrounded by educational toys and are constantly being challenged in some way or another. They don't just sit & watch TV or play video games all day. She spends a tremendous amount of energy researching different toys, preparing experiments, reviewing books, planning educational field trips, and reading to her children. The kids are younger (4th grade or lower) but they don't seem to be any further behind than any other kids and in some aspects they are very advanced. Our state requires testing every year to homeschool and they've always passed without problems so they are learning something.
I couldn't do it, but it works for them. I don't know if she'll continue as they get older or switch to a more traditional method. Her biggest goal is to get them accustomed to learning & researching things for themselves and (so far) it seems to be working very well.
Regardless if it would actually work, I'll predict that...
- We spend millions of dollars in environmental impact studies over several years before anything actually ever starts.
- When/if the environmental impact studies are done, we'll spend millions in litigation when people are told that the government is forcing them to sell their house to put in the rail.
- When/if the government is able to purchase the houses being demolished, we'll spend years in litigation for the houses next to the track when they realize it will be noisy and their houses will be devalued.
- When/if the lawsuits are done we'll begin asking for bids. Massive accusations of corruptions will happen from everyone against everyone else and will prompt lots of journalists to run investigative stories. In the end we'll waste an incredible amount of time & energy pointing fingers & complaining that someone is wasting money.
- Now, assuming we get this far we can begin construction. Massive cost overruns will happen. They always do.
- Somewhere along one of these lines a rare species of rat or tree will be found, prompting further environmental studies and the possibility of either rerouting the rail or moving the rat (yes, I've seen this happen).
- Construction on a few lines will finish and people will be able to ride the train. The people in favor of the train will claim victory if two people ride it. People opposed to the train will say it is a failure if the cars are not packed.
- Eventually everything (probably) will be finished. It will probably work in some places and be a complete waste in others. The people who use it will call the ones who don't nasty names. People who don't use it will call the people who do use it nasty names. People who live near it will hate it because of the noise. People who don't live near it will complain it is too far to be useful.
Now, keep in mind we're talking about a project that will need to be funded heavily. It will also probably need to be subsidized (most public transportation does). It will also require the support of administrations following this one and that will be challenging. I have no idea what the administration will look like in 4 years, much less 14 years.
You also have the problem is that most of the time railroads are not in use. Trains just don't run constantly and when they are in use they are only in use a short period. I'm not saying that they can't haul a lot of people or material, just that you only run one train every few hours between cities.
It isn't like an interstate that pretty much always has traffic and anyone who wants can easily use it. I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a fact. This gives people who don't like them a really nice thing to point at and say "see, nobody uses it, so why are we paying for it?"
I have my doubts that it will work, but if we are going to build it I hope it works better than my wildest dream. I'm also afraid that it will be like local mass transit where there is constantly a fight to keep the funding. If at any point we cut the funding we're talking about a lot of wasted money.
This is a very big part of the problem. This is why a lot of people who make good incomes live paycheck to paycheck. "Keeping up with the neighbors" is expensive.
It really depends on what your workload is and what you are trying to accomplish. I've seen Linux on the mainframe be a horrible thing and I've seen it be a pretty cool thing that worked wonderfully. If you are trying to do heavy math processing on a mainframe then it probably won't get you the bang for your money. On the other hand, heavy IO will probably work very well. You also get the benefit of being able to run hundreds (or even thousands) of Linux guests on one single server. That conserves physical space, electricity, software license costs, and the hardware is extremely reliable (which is part of the reason it is so expensive). It also makes disaster recovery much more straight forward.
Even IBM will tell you that there are some applications that you should not run on a zSeries processor. I've been in meetings where IBM has said that some types of workload will not perform well on a zSeries processor and you should consider Intel or some other platform.
There is no "one size fits all". Anyone who says there is "one size" is probably selling something.
I also work in IT, but a while back I was also a part time fire fighter. I fellow I worked with got me involved with it. He made one comment that I've always remembered.
"A lot of people in this job (fire fighter) get divorced and they all blame the long shifts and the strange hours. That isn't the cause. The cause is that when they have a day off they spend it with the same guys they work with playing softball or watching T.V. instead of spending time with their spouse. Eventually their spouse realies that divorce won't be much different than their current life. They are already alone so why stay married."
I always thought that was an interesting insight and I've tried to remember it. When I have free time I make sure to spend the majority of it with my family. I've been married 11 years now and I'm probably closer to my wife than I was when I married her. Very few people can say that and I believe that advice got me there.
The one which stands out in my mind is K-12. There were also the possibility of getting programs from the state where they considered you a "charter school" similar to the Chicago one. My wife did a tremendous amount of work researching everything and talking to other families.
In the end we decided against computer based training. When he gets older (assuming we're still doing it) look at the program again. I was afraid that he would be too tempted to just click through the screens. I was afraid he'd be done with a school day in 15 minutes and think he could go play.
We still go to the library and check out some of the educational software like Reader Rabbit or Jump Start and he enjoys them, but they are just a supplement.
If you don't like computer ones, there are video and satellite based homeschooling programs too. Bob Jones is one, but I know there are others. We tried the Bob Jones video program to use as a supplement. It is nice but watching TV isn't the best way for my son to learn. His mind wanders too easily to concentrate on a TV show. It is a nice supplement, but just a supplement. We tend to use them on days where he is having a bad day.
If you want to post a message to me directly I'd be glad to help answer any other questions.
Good questions.
:-)
That was actually one of my biggest concerns when my wife approached me with the idea. When he was a few years younger he was much much worse at adapting to new situations than he is now. When he was 5 he was very shy and I was afraid this would make it worse. When he was faced with a conflict or had to deal with something he didn't like he would basically just shut down and not respond. Often he would go to a corner and cry. I was very concerned that homeschooling would make it worse.
Quite the opposite has happened. He has other activities outside of the home where he is has been confronted by others not "culled" by us. Depending on the situation he stands up for himself better than I would have at his age (he's only 7). When he has team sports or he has co-ops with other homeschooling families he constantly meets different kids. Some of them becomes friends with and others he has to deal with. About the only thing he hasn't had to deal with is long-term conflict (i.e. a school year bully). I don't know how he would deal with that. I'm guessing he would find a way.
Our neighbor's son tried to bully him around, but he chose not to play with him for a while. Then he started to push back and the bully backed down. Since then the have get along fine and play together often. We didn't interefere on purpose because I wanted him to deal with it himself. That isn't the same as a year-long bully that refuses to back down but he can deal with short term issues.
Our neighbor's son went to public school and he was constantly bullied on the bus. It got bad enough that he would feel physically ill on Sunday evenings before the week started. They tried to talk to him about it, they talked to the bus driver, they even talked to the other kids parents. Nothing helped. They wound up driving him to school several months of the year. When he started to ride the bus again the problem went away because he found a way to deal with the bully himself. I guess he just wasn't ready to do it the year before.
We put my younger son in preschool to try and solve the same problem. He has a very shy personality and it is much worse than my older son. We tried for 6 months to "acclimate" him to preschool. If anything, it made the situation worse. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the preschool, there were no conflicts with other kids, and it was only three times a week for 2 hours, but he hated it anyway and would cry every time we took him. We kept thinking "he'll adjust", but he never did. He was still pretty young at the time (not quite 4) so we pulled him out and waited.
Six months later we enrolled him in a simple sports activity. It was only 1 hour a week but he did better with that because it was much more instructor directed. There was no "just play" but they were being instructed the whole time so he felt much more confident and relaxed. He still has a very long way to go, but he is making progress. He may never be a total extravert but he does need to learn how to cope with crowds of kids.
I guess my point is that kids can & do adapt. There isn't anything magical about either homeschool or public or private school. It really depends on the kid. As a parent, I also believe that it is impossible NOT to screw up your kids. It is just a matter of keeping the damage to a minimum.
We haven't decided if we'll homeschool my younger son or not. He still has 2 years until he legally needs to go to school. If it looks like it is a better fit for him then we'll send him. I have my doubts about his willingness to accept homeschool because his personality is so different than my older son. He is a different kind of kid, so it may require a different solution.
Your point about stability is a good one, but considering the school district I'm in I don't really consider public schools much more stable. Our district is large enough that he would be with a different group of kids each year anyway. They make a co
First, let me point out that I have a child who is homeschooling. He is in second grade, so we've only been doing this for 3 years. I was very cautious about this, but my wife really wanted to try it. Virtual elementary schools have been around prior to this. We looked at one when my son started first grade but decided against it.
The most common question we get about it is "what about social skills". A lot of people who homeschool make very conscious efforts to make sure their kids receive social skills. We are involved in co-ops, we do field trips with other homeschool kids, there are sporting activities, and he has other kids in the neighborhood. The best argument I heard about schools & social skills was this: teachers don't want you to be social during classes. When you were growing up were you allowed to talk in class? Of course not. You talked between classes and at lunch. Most of the social skills you received were not tought by a teacher but interaction with other kids. This can be gained outside of school too.
Yes, my son does behave different than some other kids. Some things are good and some are bad. He doesn't really understand that some questions are very awkward to ask in public, he tends to interrupt, and his patience isn't the best. On the other hand, he can talk to any adult much more easily than I ever could and he naturally asks questions if he doesn't understand something. When interacting with other kids I don't really notice a difference. He interacts with his public school & homeschool friends the same way and they play the same games.
Virtual schools have advantages & disadvantages except you get some outside support. Some parents really need that extra support because they don't feel comfortable being on their own.
The biggest benefits to non-traditional learning are the ability to go at your own pace and to change the teaching method if it doesn't work. When we started math with my son we got a really cool math program. It had blocks and videos as well as worksheets. It looked really great to me. He absolutely hated it. We tried for a few weeks and gave up. We switched to another program which had very bright and colorful worksheets but no blocks or videos. He responded much better to it and was able to learn the material much easier. Learning at your own pace is good for him too. There is no being "left behind". Until he understands the subject we don't go to the next.
That all being said, homeschooling isn't for everyone. Some kids just don't respond and need more structure. Some parents don't want the responsibility or can't be home to be the teacher. Even in virtual schools the idea isn't just "sit them in front of a computer and you are done". There is other non-computer stuff in any program I've ever seen. I can't comment on the quality of the Chicago program, but I'd imagine it is the same way. The majority of time isn't computer related. I'm sure it will be less flexible and less "go at your own pace", but that isn't necessarily bad because some kids really need the structure. It depends on the child.
Also remember that things change. The parent or the child may decide to go back to traditional schooling. People and situations change. You can always switch. All 50 states have laws permitting homeschooling. Some are more "interesting" than others, but they all allow it.
There is also one other myth I'd like to dispell. Other than social skills the second most common question is about religion. Not everyone is a religous zelot who homeschools. I'm not even remotely religious. Lots of people do it because they feel it is the best opportunity for their children and not to shelter or block their kids from the outside world.
By the way, another thing which helped convince me that it isn't a bad idea was the fact that a lot of homeschoolers are ex-teachers. You would be amazed how many ex-teachers there are doing this. Every ex-teacher I talk to says that public schools waste time and they spent the vast majority of their time on a few kids in a class.
To be a valid solution to the ancient Greeks (and win the immortality prize), shouldn't the solution be using Greek words?
Dumb question on my part. I realize how they work but my brain wasn't functioning. Next time I won't ask a question until after I have a cup of tea.
Silly me. Thanks to everyone who corrected me.
Does the environment really win or is the problem just being moved? The electricity must come from some place. Does the power plant produce more pollution to provide the electricity?
Just curious if anyone knows.
Am I the only one who read the code name as Viagra?
I knew sun was having troubles but not THAT kind of trouble.
The first failures that come to mind are...
- When the Web first became popular MS planned to ignore it and provide a private service which didn't use the Internet.
- Killing Unix in the corporate environment.
- Killing Java.
- Killing Linux.
- That wonderful product MS Bob.
- Taking on AOL as a service provider.
- The US government in their anti-trust case.
- Apache still has a larger market share.
Yes MS has had some big successes but they also fail at times. The areas they have the biggest market are where they can leverage their desktop monopoly. In areas where they compete against other big vendors and they can't use their desktop monopoly they are far less successful.
If you look at how they succeeded in the past they will have to think differently with Google.
- They own file & print by tying networking into the operating system. Novel was the leader before this.
- Excel & Word became popular because Windows was introduced and WordPerfect didn't see the value in Windows initially. It also helped that Word & Excel were cheaper than WordPerfect at the time and were bundled together as one product.
- They defeated Netscape by not only giving away the browser but by hooking it into the OS.
- Exchange is probably one of their few true successes, but it is also not a slam dunk and they got this partly through their office suite domination. There are still competitors in this space and every Exchange virus makes it more difficult for them.
I'm not saying they won't succeed but MicroSoft isn't a god and they make mistakes like any other company. As a corporation grows it becomes less flexible and as it ages it can also becomes less creative in marketing because it tends to rely on past methods which were successful.
Google is a household word now and it is already free to use. MicroSoft can't bundle a search engine into the OS and even if it does, the government is keeping an eye on them so they must be careful. Even today there was a story about MS exec commenting that they should force vendors to abandon the iPod in for MS products. They quickly said it wasn't an official company plan when someone complained to the government.
I'm not saying that they won't beat Google but it won't be an easy battle.
NASA has called in private companies before. IBM got to keep a good deal of technology they developed in the 1960s & 1970s for NASA. One of the most famous program in particular for the mainframe is JES and a version of JES is still used by every IBM mainframe system. Banks, insurance companies, and other large manufacturers still depend heavily on software initially developed to put someone on the moon. It's pretty cool when you think about it and I hope Google will get the same type of benefit from working with NASA.
Where I work we have a relatively young staff because only about 1/2 will retire in the next 10 years. At 33 years old, I'm the youngest by about 10 years. One of my co-workers told me that I'll be chained to my desk when I'm as old as she is but those chains will probably be made of gold. Whenever any vendor or customer comes on site the first thing they say is "I never see anyone your age doing mainframe work."
It is a pitty because given a fair chance I bet people would like being an admin once they got past the initial learning curve. The monitoring and automation tools are nothing short of incredible. I can tell what each program is waiting on, what data it is reading, who has higher priority, how long it has been running, how much IO it has done, and lots of other things. I can even alter the memory of the program as it is running (although I'm too chicken to do it). I can also go back in time and get this information from days ago so when I get the "it was slow yesterday" problem I can easily investigate.
I didn't learn a thing from college regarding the mainframe. College was for general logic, problem solving, and overall data structure. Everything I learned was on the job training. When I started one of the older guys said it takes at least 5 years to make a good systems programmer. Anything less and you have a dangerous person who only thinks they understand what is happening. I would have to agree.
The mainframe is really nice in some areas. It is an ego rush to fix a problem that is keeping a multi-billion doller company from shipping any new products (I did that yesterday) and the people I work with are great because they are always willing to share experience and historical knowledge. When they retire I'll miss them.
The price you pay is that many systems have 30+ years of customization in them. They are incredibly complex and very tailored so no two are exactly alike and as a systems programmer I'm expected to be the "final expert" on any problem the users can't solve. This includes finding out why a program that was written when I was three years old no longer reads a PDS properly or why a job that hasn't changed in 5 years suddenly stopped working. It can be lots of fun but it can be frustrating too especially because the bosses really don't want to hear "I don't know" for an answer and "just reboot" isn't even in their vocabulary.
Computers are not the end answer for education in schools. Computers are a tool and nothing more and should be used as such. The wrong thing to do is to substitute computer software for teachers.
Giving a calculator to someone who doesn't understand math doesn't help them. Using this type of logic, giving someone a saw and hammer makes them a master carpenter.
I'm a mainframe sysprog but I've coded on Unix & Windows. I'm also rather young (33) for a mainframe sysprog. Here are the differences.
The first difference is the difference of work running on a system. Unix & Windows development typically takes place on dedicated machines. The changes are then applied to a separate production machine. On a mainframe development & production are often the same LPAR (Logical Partition) or the same physical box. Because of this development gets the low priority. If you run out of juice on a Unix/Windows box you either get a bigger one or you cluster them together. In the mainframe you either redesign it to run more efficiently or you start shelling out $$$ for a bigger machine. Normally your only choice is the redesign.
Software on a mainframe is horribly expensive and the faster the machine the more it usually costs. This is an old way of spreading the pain of software development. The big guys pay more because their machines are faster but the smaller guys get to pay less. Imagine if MicroSoft decided to charge a lot less for Office if you ran it on a P5 instead of the newest processor? Some software on Windows is licensed by the CPU, but I've never heard of the speed of the CPU being a factor. Do you think you'd get that fancy new PC if the software would cost 10x as much?
On a mainframe software development is a slow process with lots of checks along the way. Nobody just "slams in a change" unless they are either 100% sure it will work and it fixes a critical problem that is impacting business, or they want to be fired. Banks frown heavily on downtime. Unix & Windows systems seem to be more tolerant of this (with the odd exception being email - how email became the most important application is beyond me).
Once you develop, debug, and get a mainframe program running you can usually forget about it. There are programs running on mainframes today that haven't changed in 30 years. That is a pretty good return on investment. I've dealt with both and it seems to boil down to "pay me now or pay me later". Installing stuff on a mainframe take a lot of up front work but if you do it correctly you can expect it to work well when you are done. Windows programs are easier to install and develop but you have the constant reboot issues, memory leaks, and just plain annoying mysteries to deal with.
Mainframes (in my opinion) have far far far superior system diagnostic tools. If a program is running slow I can determine if it is CPU, disk, database contention, or any other resource shortage. This is mainly because there is so much running on any given mainframe that system diagnostic tools need to be very good. The tools on Unix and Windows are good but they don't need to be as complete because the environments are far less complex.
Program debugging tools on a mainframe can be awful. Interactive debuggers are the exception, not the norm. They tend to take up CPU which drive up software costs which the finance department hates. I've seen good interactive debuggers but they suck CPU and make the finance department hate you.
Batch controls on a mainframe are far superior to Unix or Windows. This is mainly because the mainframe started life as a batch system. Once you understand and master JCL it is really a good system. Batch on Unix and especially Windows is more of an after thought. You can run batch, but the tools to monitor failures, schedule dependencies, and validate results are not as good.
A programmer must know how a program is going to run on a mainframe long before you run it. You need to know how much disk, CPU, and memory you need and how man lines of output you are going to use. If you exceed this by too much your program will be automatically canceled. This is because you are not the only one using the system and if you exceeded what you said you needed your program could have a problem. That can be painful but it stops program loops if done properly.
The "just reb
And Henry Ford said you could have any color car you want as long as it is black. The last time I looked, there were several different models of cars in different colors. All of them basically do the same thing, operate in a similar manner, and obey the same basic rules but nobody says we should use the same model & make of car.
I've tried several different distributions (RedHat, Fedora, SuSE, TurboLinux, Debian and several other minor distros). The biggest difference I've ever seen is in the install and upgrade process and both of these have become a thousand times easier than they were 10 years ago.
Once Linux is actually running there isn't much of a difference between the distros. RPM vs APT is probably the biggest difference in installing software and with automatic download & install utilities (yum, apt-get...) the average user doesn't need to know how things are packaged.
Some distros seem to package different software by default and some use KDE while others use Gnome but all of them operate pretty much the same. Some seem to be better suited to servers and others do better on the desktop but the actual look and feel is not very different.
The biggest difference (IMHO) is in support. Some have none and others do. If you need it depends on your preferences. I've never used a Linux support service for i386, but I did on z-Series Linux.
I understand what you are saying, but I hope it never happens. I think it is a strength that so many distros exist.
I use the Dvorak layout so most of the keys are in the wrong place. It drives people nuts when the borrow my PC.
In any event, most keys on a regular keyboard are the same size. If you want to prevent yourself from looking at the keys can't you just move them around so that they don't match up?
I suggest they change it to 1 pound.
Think how easy it would make converting between metric & the archaic units of measure we use in the US. It would probably be much easier than getting the US to change to the metric system.
Actually, aside from the flag burning & Internet regulation examples, the article is quoting more of the opinions of students & teachers rather than the knowledge they have of the first amendment. Even the article you quoted is their opinion, not their understanding.
While I don't like their opinions they are just as free to have them as you or I. I'm also not surprised that a group of people who are not permitted to have all of the first amendment freedoms don't see the big deal about having them. I'd be interested in seeing how this same survey does with college age people who are not so restricted in their freedoms. I'd guess it would be different.
As for conservative vs. liberal opinions, I've seen both restrict what their kids can do. I think it is based more on parental fear rather than political opinion. For most parents, their kids freedoms are secondary to their kids safety. The easiest way (although not always the best way) to ensure their safety is to restrict their freedom.
I've dealt with IBM Software in the past. They typically lag behind in their "official" supported platforms because they need to go through a lot of tests to validate their software works as designed. When I've run into issues like this they simply say "it may work, but we haven't tested it enough yet".
That is why they pick a flavor (or two) of Linux as supported instead of saying "we support Linux". Other distros will probably work, but they only have so much time to validate & test. For a long time WebSphere (at least on z/Series hardware) was only supported on a 2.2 kernel. It ran fine on 2.4, but it wasn't officially supported.
That being said, if you do have a problem and you have a support contract IBM will work with you to solve the issue, but they don't like to make gurantees about unsupported hardware / software interacting with their stuff.
This article seems to be more for older education, but my wife read in a parenting magazine not too long ago (I don't remember which one) that recommended not relying on games & TV to teach small kids.
The thought was that books force kids to form new neurons at a much more rapid rate than games or television. Don't ask me how they measured neurons (I don't have enough to know). They also said that the moving visual & audio input can make it harder for kids to memorize new subjects because of the distractions they cause. They did say that games are a good & TV tools, but don't rely completely on them and use them in moderation.
I don't if games or good or bad, but with two small kids I can say that different kids learn differently so I guess it depends on what works best for you or your kids. I will also say that through my experience, things like counting & ABCs were learned much more quickly in books than toys (and we tried both). The games were nice, but they just wind up clicking stuff until they get the correct answer. Reading to them forced them to interact with adults who can help explain when necessary. Once they learned the stuff though, the games seemed to help reinforce it.
I probably shouldn't respond but...
I'm not a Republican nor am I a Dem. I try to look at both sides & make up my own mind. Sometimes I agree with Democrats, sometimes I agree with Republicans. It just depends on the issue & the argument.
Some of the President's ideas (like SS & overhauling the tax code) I like. That said, I think Bush has a serious number of faults. He spends way too much money. I think his prescription drug program is a nightmare waiting to happen and was done purely to buy votes from the elderly. I think his environmental efforts are lacking. I think that his diplomacy needs a serious overhaul. I think his talk of a constitutional amendment for the "defense" of marriage is an absolute waste of time & the religous right are being rediculous.
As for Occam's Razor, I've heard the past 3 presidents (including Bill Clinton) claim that SS is in trouble. If SS wasn't in trouble why did John Kerry have plans to fix it? If Republicans & Democrats both say it is in trouble, odds are they are telling the truth. The only real difference I see is they disagree on how serious the problem is.
The average life expectancy as I stated it, was misleading. I apologize. The correct answer would be found here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html. Notice how the percentage of people expected to reach 65 is only slightly obove 50%. Notice how that percentage & the number of people over 65 have increased dramatically. The life expectancy has also increased (although only slightly). All these make me wonder about the setup of Social Security.
As for Republicans "hating SS", I don't believe that is the case either. I think the Democrats love to tout that the Republicans hate the elderly, but I've never seen any real evidence. To the contrary, the new presciption drug benefit is a good example of them trying to "help" the elderly & responding to their demands.
A more accurate description, IMHO, would be that Democrats are so mad over the election they won't give him credit for a single thing. I also believe if the situation was reversed Republicans would be just as mad & act the exact same way. They did act this way when Bill Clinton was first elected so they certainly can't claim they took the high road in the past. I thought the constant probing into Bill Clinton when he was in office was a stupid waste of money & nothing more than sour grapes from the Republicans.
I also think that Democrats & Republicans have differing philosophy about how to run a government, although both want to increase their control. The differene is that the Democrats want a larger government where they can directly keep control and be in power, while Republicans want their friends in business to get more power & money. I highly doubt either parties have the purest of intentions. The number one goal of anyone in office is to get re-elected, any good (or bad) they do is secondary to getting re-elected.
When Social Security was started the "retirement" age was set at 65. This age was picked because it was ABOVE the expected life of the average person. The thought was that if you made it to 65 you probably couldn't work and, to keep you from being a burdon, society had an obligation to provide you a suplement to help you get along. When Social Security was formed, most people knew they would never see any money from it. I believe the average woman is expected to make it to 85. Imagine increasing the age you can collect Social Security at to 90. How many people would be happy? That is the way it was when the system was designed.
Social Security was never designed to be a person's sole source of income. It was designed to be a suplement. Also keep in mind that people over the age of 65 are the second wealthiest demographic when taken as a whole. There is no means testing for collecting SS so everyone gets a check regardless of their need. The poorest are the ones in their 20s who are in debt with kids. These are the ones who pay for SS with every cent earned up to about $90,000.
The idea that someone just "quits working" is a relatively new thing. In past centuries you worked until you died. It isn't unusual to see someone retire at 55 today. That person could easily live 30 years into their retirement. That is almost as many years as they worked. That is a very unusual thing and has never happened in history.
About 10 years ago I saw a survey of people in college. More college students believed in UFOs then believed they would ever see a single Social Security check. I'm over 30 and have no expectation that I'll ever see a SS check. That is why I invested 15% of my pre-tax income to my 401k, I maxed out on my ROTH IRA, and contributed the maximum amount to my pension. Yes I drive an old car. Yes, I can't afford go out to eat every weekend. I don't go on expensive vacations and I don't buy the latest tech toys. That is the trade off for saving for your future. I figure when I'm 90 I'd rather eat than remember the I-Pod I owned 60 years ago.
The private contributions that Republicans are planning are VOLUNTARY. If you want you can keep your investments the same as they are now. You also can't invest everything, only a portion can be invested in private accounts. It is YOUR choice. The only thing the government is really forcing you to do is contribute. Personally I like any freedoms the government gives me. If I had my choice I'd keep every dime & opt out of SS because I think I can do better on my own. I know that won't happen, but this is the next best thing. I think it is interesting that people who complain about the Patriot Act taking away their freedoms are some of the same people complaining about getting a freedom of choice from the government.