The breakup occurred on January 1, 1984. That was before fiber was in any sort of common use, so they didn't lose anything. Besides, any fiber already in the ground would have belonged to AT&T Long Lines, which is the company that became AT&T. Long lines is the ONLY thing any fiber in the ground was being used for at that time. It was used for transcontinental trunk lines. It was too expensive to be running around cities for for local exchange distribution.
AT&T isn't just a Tier 1 provider, they were the first. They do not rely on CenturyLink. They have peering agreements and interconnects. Whatever your beef with them, you're talking about shit you do not know as well as you think you know.
You are correct. I got my definitions wrong. The prime difference is that preferred stock are paid dividends. Common stock owner may or may not receive dividends.
Confederate states never existed on their own. The north just let em think they existed for the purpose of war.
The real reason for the civil war was to get rid of all the racist assholes.
I see. So when Lincoln said the war was about preserving the Union and not about slavery, he was lying? You're an idiot. Slavery wasn't banned until it became obvious the North was going to win. Lincoln opposed slavery but was never willing to go to war over it. The war was ONLY about preserving the union.
No she didn't.. The President isn't elected by popular vote. Never has been, never will be. The fact that you don't understand WHY the system is as it is does not make it wrong or unfair.
Systems like this are all over the place.
Case in point: You could own 99.9% of the shares in a company, but if it's not preferred (voting) stock, you have no say in how the company runs. You get the share of the profits (if they are paid out) but no say in day to day operations. This information is not secret. Companies have to disclose this information. But if you bitch about it later, nobody is going to give a fuck.
Constitutional amendments require the consent of the states. The smaller states (population wise) will not cut their own throats and change this system.
This is simply not true. Economists are very clear on the fact that "the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs". It is our poor immigration policies and lack of economic assistance to displaced and otherwise low income workers in the US which is suppressing wages, not immigrants.
I don't buy it.. 1,470 economists is a lot but it's not all of them and truth does not require consensus. Truth stands on its own. It's going to take more than a short blurb to convince me that 1,000,000 bodies added to the labor pool is not depressing wages when I can see it happening with my own eyes.
This practice made its way into our laws from English common law. Known as jus soli (Latin for "right of the soil"), birthright citizenship is guaranteed in about 30 other countries. Some countries do put limits, such as France requiring an additional 5 year residency condition (a pretty light restriction). It should always be remembered that no matter what law the parents may have broken, the child has done absolutely nothing wrong. That child has done nothing different than any child born to native parents.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I know the law and the bit "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is where I take issue with our current policy. An illegal is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. Sometimes it helps to look at an extreme example to see the minor nuances.. If we were at war with another country.. say... Cuba, just as an example, and lets imagine things had gone bad.. We were being occupied... If a female Cuban soldier gave birth, on US soil, would her child automatically be a citizen? I think we'd both agree that "No, her child would not be a citizen". Why? War? Invasion? I know it's an extreme example, but it would be lunacy to think that a foreign army could be creating little US citizens while invading.
It doesn't matter to me that the child is innocent. I'm not proposing it be punished. But to reject automatic citizenship for the child is not a punishment. It's the denial of a reward. You're absolutely right that it has done nothing wrong, but it's done nothing right either. It's neutral. Our current policy of not separating the child from the mother ends up rewarding the MOTHER for an illegal act. It further encourages women to attempt to give birth on US soil in violation of the law. That's why they are known as Anchor Babies. I disagree with this policy and will continue to vote against any who support it as is my legal right.
To me the illegal immigration problem is primarily caused by our country not having an appropriate policy to handle the number of immigrants willing to come to the US, and handle the number of jobs in our economy which require their labor.
I typically reject the notion, outright, that we need more immigrants for labor. I'm sorry but my grandparents worked the strawberry fields of California during the dust bowl. They moved here from Oklahoma and did field work.. i.e. our current citizens will do the work if the wages are appropriate. During that era the numbers of illegals was much lower and farmers had to pay more reasonable wages for labor. I also reject the idea that 1M immigrants per year is not adequate. I'm sorry but not everybody who wants in gets to come in. To suggest otherwise is... unreasonable in my opinion.
That is a good point. And for the most part you are absolutely correct. The trades can be subject to a feast/famine situation. But, from what I've seen that mostly hits the guys in the new construction/renovation fields.. A generalized plumber will have fairly steady work doing repairs/maintenance if the density of plumbers in an area isn't too high.
I think we might both agree that if the public's rejection of the trades, as good jobs, continues and the available pool of talent shrinks the wages and demand for the remaining people will continue to rise. There's a balance. The simple fact is that most people won't or cannot fix their own lines when the shit starts backup up.:)
No, it does not. It most certainly does not. Your information is in error or you do not understand how the internet works. It is vastly more likely that it is the other way around. i.e. A CenturyLink customer may connect to a remote network and the data travels across AT&T (or Level 3 for example) network for the bulk of the trip and then hits CenturyLink for the last mile.
Uh.. No guy.. AT&T does not use CenturyLink's fiber. I was an AT&T Construction Splicer for a decade. I've work on transcontinental trunks and small distribution fibers.. I can assure you that as a Tier 1 Provider they use their own fiber. As I mentioned before, they have interconnects and peering agreements with other providers, but that's how the whole internet works.. you have to connect to other systems. I can run a traceroute from San Diego to NY and it'll never leave AT&T's network..
Since everything is CenturyLink we lost, Comcast, CableOne, Verizon, AT&T and CellularOne services. WHY???
Um, not that I disagree with your post, but it's a bit confusing. Are you suggesting that AT&T uses CenturyLink for connectivity? If not, my apologies. But if so, then you are way off base. AT&T is a Tier 1 provider. They have interconnect agreements with other networks, but they own fiber running to every continent. I don't recall if that includes Antarctica. So yeah.. I didn't have any issues with my AT&T fiber..
Holy shit.. That's a long time to get internet connectivity back up. This isn't 1990.. internet is not a trivial service anymore.. Entire industries require it for supply / distribution / ordering / etc.. etc..
So, telling the government you aren't going to give them what they don't have (money) because you didn't get your way is less moral than the left demanding they get to spend money they don't have (need to borrow) in a way that Trump disagrees with?
By the way, asshole, even though Trump "owned" it, it's not really up to him. You lefties love to forget that Congress can override his ass with a 2/3 vote. So really Trump is a speed bump at worst. He can veto a bill, but not if 2/3 of Congress decides they are going to do it anyway. If Congress really wants to spend the money as they see fit, they don't need Trump's concurrence.
I really don't think you understand how this works.. We ran out of money.. I don't know how it's "wasting money" to NOT spend money we DO NOT have, but.. okay..
The shutdown is what happens when there is no agreement on BORROWING more money. So, a giant fuck you to you for not giving a shit that we don't have money and instead insisting that it's some how more moral to spend money we don't have than to not spend money we don't have.
I have no problem with that. I'm quite "pro immigration" as long as it's legal, sustainable, and most importantly, needed. I do, personally, think 1M a year might be a bit on the high side because, as you pointed out, we do have an employment issue at the moment (it's getting better) but dumping 1M bodies a year into the pool is depressing wages.. I don't know what the proper number is.. but maybe we cut it in 1/2 and see how that goes.. Unfortunately, I don't think Congress has any connection with the public and reality so I don't have much hope of that..
I do have serious issues with this idea that our government has that the child of an illegal is somehow legal. I've read the constitution and that's not how I interpret it. I can't think of a single other country that would declare the child, of someone who has snuck in, to be a full citizen. It's asinine.
Nevertheless, while illegal immigration might be declining (I'll take your word for it) we are still at around 10% illegal out of the entire population of the US. That's CRAZY. One out of every 10 people you see (statistically) is here illegally. (based on estimates of 30M illegal people in the US out of 300 million total population). I highly doubt that any other western nation even comes close to those numbers.
That's 10% of the population with a fake SSN or who don't have a SSN and are paid under the table. Either way someone is getting fucked.
Spot on. Good to see there are still folks out there with common sense.
I feel for the kids getting those degrees who are also shouldering huge student loan debts because they were convinced that "learn now / pay later" is a reasonable path.. Back in the day you paid as you went.. Or you paid upfront if your parents had set up a college fund. i.e. when you left college you had either no debt at all or just a little bit (last semester owed maybe).
Right off the bat a person with a student loan is at a disadvantage.. They need a higher wage to break even than someone with the exact same degree who isn't dragging around $100K in debt. This makes them less able to compete for jobs.. As an employer (not now, but in the past) given a choice between two identical candidates, I'd hire the one who accepted the lowest wage.. That's not going to be the guy with the huge loans..
That isn't being cheap either, as I'm sure someone is going to accuse. The person with the huge loan is going to constantly be looking for higher paying jobs. Thus to hire them, even at the standard wage for a field, is highly risky. The risk that they will bounce makes training them a gamble at best.. They simply need more money to be comfortable than a person doing the same job who isn't making interest payments on his education.
I'm not really surprised by this.. We have a glut of college educated people out there. Hiring those people for fields other than what they earned their degree in is.. risky at best.. If the job they are seeking, at the moment, is not what they have a degree in you can be fairly sure they are going to bounce when a more appropriate job comes along.
That means you're potentially wasting the training you may have to provide. Sure, you might get lucky and they stick around long enough that the training was still a good investment but your gain would be their loss, and that's not an ideal situation either.
The term for this phenomenon is "over qualified". Hiring a guy with a master's in math theory to do plumbing isn't gonna work out in the long term. That guy wants to do mathy stuff and he'll punch out the second he can. I don't fault him for that, of course, but if you're the potential employer that's a problem. Better to just spend the time training the guy with no degree who actually wants to be a plumber. Sure he might go work elsewhere for better wages, but that's at least something you can compensate for (pay more). No reasonable amount of $$ is going to make a math guy happy being a plumber.
Ah.. I gotcha. Yeah, mother's maiden name is not a thing that is verified. It's the thing you use to get back into your account if you get locked out. Yes, it can be set to anything you want, as long as you remember what it was if/when the time comes.
Which is why I said "statistically speaking". I didn't say they could not be changed. Your example is what? 1 out of 1,000,000? That can be written as zero if we're not rounding to anything past ten thousandths.
They do pay well. Maybe not in comparison to other jobs in the Bay Area, but that's something those commies up there will have to deal with on their own. Once it's too expensive to live there, for trades people, the programmers and other IT goobers will find the cost of repairs is going to shoot up. You pay for the labor and you pay for the commute to get to the labor. Supply and Demand... If your supply of plumbers is zero and the demand is greater than zero....
In areas outside of Silicon Valley a plumber can still earn a very comfortable living. The prospects look even better for continued wage growth as the amount of people becoming plumbers is dwindling. Plumbing is one of those jobs that will be around forever.. If the available pool continues to shrink the wages will continue to rise in response. Same thing is happening with electricians.. A friend with a construction company said his average pay for electricians is about $45/hour right now. I know that doesn't sound like a whole lot to a Bay Area person but in the regular world that's pretty damn good. The median income for CA is $60,336/yearly. $45/hour puts you at about $93,600/year. That's over 50% higher than the median. So basically, anywhere besides San Fran, you're earning a very good living.
When things go awry a competent plumber is a whole lot more important, at that moment, than just about any tech type job.. If your shit won't go down the toilet, fixing that becomes about the most important job in the world...
How about those "win this car" scams? It amazes me how much information people will put on that entry form to MAYBE have a chance at winning a car..I say MAYBE 'cause who the hell even knows if the car is ever won.. Might be one giant scam..
A million LEGAL immigrants per year. That is what I said. I said we take in "1 million legal immigrants per year". You having a hard time with reading comprehension?
Not speaking for the poster, but the reasons I hear most often, in everyday life, is dissatisfaction with class sizes (our district is up to 27+ students per teacher), religious reasons, safety (people still don't understand that school shootings are statistically super rare and you're way more likely to die in your bathtub, but I digress) and last (and least) is political reasons. The last reason is usually reactionary. i.e. it's not that the parents don't send the kid to school because of "whatever", it's that they pull the kid out of school after "whatever" has set them off.
An anecdote, but when I was younger there was a teacher at our middle school who was a communist.. I mean that literally.. This guy didn't teach about communism and capitalism and then compare the differences.. He didn't teach the history of communism... Those would be reasonable. This guy taught that communism was "the way". He PUSHED communist ideology in every aspect of his classes. I know of 2 parents who jerked their kids out of the school over that. Our district population is pretty conservative, but the district employees are way more liberal. It's caused a lot tension of the years. And, I'm sure, it's caused more than a few people to go the home-school route.
Out here "home school" isn't really what most people imagine.. It's more.. collective. Like, it's not a mom teaching her kids.. It's a mom teaching her kids and the kids of 5 of her neighbors.. More like that.. More efficient I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Pot.Kettle.Black
The breakup occurred on January 1, 1984. That was before fiber was in any sort of common use, so they didn't lose anything. Besides, any fiber already in the ground would have belonged to AT&T Long Lines, which is the company that became AT&T. Long lines is the ONLY thing any fiber in the ground was being used for at that time. It was used for transcontinental trunk lines. It was too expensive to be running around cities for for local exchange distribution.
AT&T isn't just a Tier 1 provider, they were the first. They do not rely on CenturyLink. They have peering agreements and interconnects. Whatever your beef with them, you're talking about shit you do not know as well as you think you know.
You are correct. I got my definitions wrong. The prime difference is that preferred stock are paid dividends. Common stock owner may or may not receive dividends.
Confederate states never existed on their own. The north just let em think they existed for the purpose of war.
The real reason for the civil war was to get rid of all the racist assholes.
I see. So when Lincoln said the war was about preserving the Union and not about slavery, he was lying? You're an idiot. Slavery wasn't banned until it became obvious the North was going to win. Lincoln opposed slavery but was never willing to go to war over it. The war was ONLY about preserving the union.
No she didn't.. The President isn't elected by popular vote. Never has been, never will be. The fact that you don't understand WHY the system is as it is does not make it wrong or unfair.
Systems like this are all over the place.
Case in point: You could own 99.9% of the shares in a company, but if it's not preferred (voting) stock, you have no say in how the company runs. You get the share of the profits (if they are paid out) but no say in day to day operations. This information is not secret. Companies have to disclose this information. But if you bitch about it later, nobody is going to give a fuck.
Constitutional amendments require the consent of the states. The smaller states (population wise) will not cut their own throats and change this system.
This is simply not true. Economists are very clear on the fact that "the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs". It is our poor immigration policies and lack of economic assistance to displaced and otherwise low income workers in the US which is suppressing wages, not immigrants.
I don't buy it.. 1,470 economists is a lot but it's not all of them and truth does not require consensus. Truth stands on its own. It's going to take more than a short blurb to convince me that 1,000,000 bodies added to the labor pool is not depressing wages when I can see it happening with my own eyes.
This practice made its way into our laws from English common law. Known as jus soli (Latin for "right of the soil"), birthright citizenship is guaranteed in about 30 other countries. Some countries do put limits, such as France requiring an additional 5 year residency condition (a pretty light restriction). It should always be remembered that no matter what law the parents may have broken, the child has done absolutely nothing wrong. That child has done nothing different than any child born to native parents.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I know the law and the bit "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is where I take issue with our current policy. An illegal is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. Sometimes it helps to look at an extreme example to see the minor nuances.. If we were at war with another country.. say... Cuba, just as an example, and lets imagine things had gone bad.. We were being occupied... If a female Cuban soldier gave birth, on US soil, would her child automatically be a citizen? I think we'd both agree that "No, her child would not be a citizen". Why? War? Invasion? I know it's an extreme example, but it would be lunacy to think that a foreign army could be creating little US citizens while invading.
It doesn't matter to me that the child is innocent. I'm not proposing it be punished. But to reject automatic citizenship for the child is not a punishment. It's the denial of a reward. You're absolutely right that it has done nothing wrong, but it's done nothing right either. It's neutral. Our current policy of not separating the child from the mother ends up rewarding the MOTHER for an illegal act. It further encourages women to attempt to give birth on US soil in violation of the law. That's why they are known as Anchor Babies. I disagree with this policy and will continue to vote against any who support it as is my legal right.
To me the illegal immigration problem is primarily caused by our country not having an appropriate policy to handle the number of immigrants willing to come to the US, and handle the number of jobs in our economy which require their labor.
I typically reject the notion, outright, that we need more immigrants for labor. I'm sorry but my grandparents worked the strawberry fields of California during the dust bowl. They moved here from Oklahoma and did field work.. i.e. our current citizens will do the work if the wages are appropriate. During that era the numbers of illegals was much lower and farmers had to pay more reasonable wages for labor. I also reject the idea that 1M immigrants per year is not adequate. I'm sorry but not everybody who wants in gets to come in. To suggest otherwise is... unreasonable in my opinion.
That should have ended as "when the shit starts to back up". Dunno wtf happened there.....
That is a good point. And for the most part you are absolutely correct. The trades can be subject to a feast/famine situation. But, from what I've seen that mostly hits the guys in the new construction/renovation fields.. A generalized plumber will have fairly steady work doing repairs/maintenance if the density of plumbers in an area isn't too high.
I think we might both agree that if the public's rejection of the trades, as good jobs, continues and the available pool of talent shrinks the wages and demand for the remaining people will continue to rise. There's a balance. The simple fact is that most people won't or cannot fix their own lines when the shit starts backup up. :)
No, it does not. It most certainly does not. Your information is in error or you do not understand how the internet works. It is vastly more likely that it is the other way around. i.e. A CenturyLink customer may connect to a remote network and the data travels across AT&T (or Level 3 for example) network for the bulk of the trip and then hits CenturyLink for the last mile.
Uh.. No guy.. AT&T does not use CenturyLink's fiber. I was an AT&T Construction Splicer for a decade. I've work on transcontinental trunks and small distribution fibers.. I can assure you that as a Tier 1 Provider they use their own fiber. As I mentioned before, they have interconnects and peering agreements with other providers, but that's how the whole internet works.. you have to connect to other systems. I can run a traceroute from San Diego to NY and it'll never leave AT&T's network..
Since everything is CenturyLink we lost, Comcast, CableOne, Verizon, AT&T and CellularOne services. WHY???
Um, not that I disagree with your post, but it's a bit confusing. Are you suggesting that AT&T uses CenturyLink for connectivity? If not, my apologies. But if so, then you are way off base. AT&T is a Tier 1 provider. They have interconnect agreements with other networks, but they own fiber running to every continent. I don't recall if that includes Antarctica. So yeah.. I didn't have any issues with my AT&T fiber..
Holy shit.. That's a long time to get internet connectivity back up. This isn't 1990.. internet is not a trivial service anymore.. Entire industries require it for supply / distribution / ordering / etc.. etc..
So, telling the government you aren't going to give them what they don't have (money) because you didn't get your way is less moral than the left demanding they get to spend money they don't have (need to borrow) in a way that Trump disagrees with?
By the way, asshole, even though Trump "owned" it, it's not really up to him. You lefties love to forget that Congress can override his ass with a 2/3 vote. So really Trump is a speed bump at worst. He can veto a bill, but not if 2/3 of Congress decides they are going to do it anyway. If Congress really wants to spend the money as they see fit, they don't need Trump's concurrence.
I really don't think you understand how this works.. We ran out of money.. I don't know how it's "wasting money" to NOT spend money we DO NOT have, but.. okay..
The shutdown is what happens when there is no agreement on BORROWING more money. So, a giant fuck you to you for not giving a shit that we don't have money and instead insisting that it's some how more moral to spend money we don't have than to not spend money we don't have.
I have no problem with that. I'm quite "pro immigration" as long as it's legal, sustainable, and most importantly, needed. I do, personally, think 1M a year might be a bit on the high side because, as you pointed out, we do have an employment issue at the moment (it's getting better) but dumping 1M bodies a year into the pool is depressing wages.. I don't know what the proper number is.. but maybe we cut it in 1/2 and see how that goes.. Unfortunately, I don't think Congress has any connection with the public and reality so I don't have much hope of that..
I do have serious issues with this idea that our government has that the child of an illegal is somehow legal. I've read the constitution and that's not how I interpret it. I can't think of a single other country that would declare the child, of someone who has snuck in, to be a full citizen. It's asinine.
Nevertheless, while illegal immigration might be declining (I'll take your word for it) we are still at around 10% illegal out of the entire population of the US. That's CRAZY. One out of every 10 people you see (statistically) is here illegally. (based on estimates of 30M illegal people in the US out of 300 million total population). I highly doubt that any other western nation even comes close to those numbers.
That's 10% of the population with a fake SSN or who don't have a SSN and are paid under the table. Either way someone is getting fucked.
Spot on. Good to see there are still folks out there with common sense.
I feel for the kids getting those degrees who are also shouldering huge student loan debts because they were convinced that "learn now / pay later" is a reasonable path.. Back in the day you paid as you went.. Or you paid upfront if your parents had set up a college fund. i.e. when you left college you had either no debt at all or just a little bit (last semester owed maybe).
Right off the bat a person with a student loan is at a disadvantage.. They need a higher wage to break even than someone with the exact same degree who isn't dragging around $100K in debt. This makes them less able to compete for jobs.. As an employer (not now, but in the past) given a choice between two identical candidates, I'd hire the one who accepted the lowest wage.. That's not going to be the guy with the huge loans..
That isn't being cheap either, as I'm sure someone is going to accuse. The person with the huge loan is going to constantly be looking for higher paying jobs. Thus to hire them, even at the standard wage for a field, is highly risky. The risk that they will bounce makes training them a gamble at best.. They simply need more money to be comfortable than a person doing the same job who isn't making interest payments on his education.
I'm not really surprised by this.. We have a glut of college educated people out there. Hiring those people for fields other than what they earned their degree in is.. risky at best.. If the job they are seeking, at the moment, is not what they have a degree in you can be fairly sure they are going to bounce when a more appropriate job comes along.
That means you're potentially wasting the training you may have to provide. Sure, you might get lucky and they stick around long enough that the training was still a good investment but your gain would be their loss, and that's not an ideal situation either.
The term for this phenomenon is "over qualified". Hiring a guy with a master's in math theory to do plumbing isn't gonna work out in the long term. That guy wants to do mathy stuff and he'll punch out the second he can. I don't fault him for that, of course, but if you're the potential employer that's a problem. Better to just spend the time training the guy with no degree who actually wants to be a plumber. Sure he might go work elsewhere for better wages, but that's at least something you can compensate for (pay more). No reasonable amount of $$ is going to make a math guy happy being a plumber.
Ah.. I gotcha. Yeah, mother's maiden name is not a thing that is verified. It's the thing you use to get back into your account if you get locked out. Yes, it can be set to anything you want, as long as you remember what it was if/when the time comes.
Which is why I said "statistically speaking". I didn't say they could not be changed. Your example is what? 1 out of 1,000,000? That can be written as zero if we're not rounding to anything past ten thousandths.
They do pay well. Maybe not in comparison to other jobs in the Bay Area, but that's something those commies up there will have to deal with on their own. Once it's too expensive to live there, for trades people, the programmers and other IT goobers will find the cost of repairs is going to shoot up. You pay for the labor and you pay for the commute to get to the labor. Supply and Demand... If your supply of plumbers is zero and the demand is greater than zero....
In areas outside of Silicon Valley a plumber can still earn a very comfortable living. The prospects look even better for continued wage growth as the amount of people becoming plumbers is dwindling. Plumbing is one of those jobs that will be around forever.. If the available pool continues to shrink the wages will continue to rise in response. Same thing is happening with electricians.. A friend with a construction company said his average pay for electricians is about $45/hour right now. I know that doesn't sound like a whole lot to a Bay Area person but in the regular world that's pretty damn good. The median income for CA is $60,336/yearly. $45/hour puts you at about $93,600/year. That's over 50% higher than the median. So basically, anywhere besides San Fran, you're earning a very good living.
When things go awry a competent plumber is a whole lot more important, at that moment, than just about any tech type job.. If your shit won't go down the toilet, fixing that becomes about the most important job in the world...
You think the average plumber or HVAC guy is on food stamps? Holy fuck do you have some disconnect.
How about those "win this car" scams? It amazes me how much information people will put on that entry form to MAYBE have a chance at winning a car. .I say MAYBE 'cause who the hell even knows if the car is ever won.. Might be one giant scam..
A million LEGAL immigrants per year. That is what I said. I said we take in "1 million legal immigrants per year". You having a hard time with reading comprehension?
What was the primary reason you home-schooled?
Not speaking for the poster, but the reasons I hear most often, in everyday life, is dissatisfaction with class sizes (our district is up to 27+ students per teacher), religious reasons, safety (people still don't understand that school shootings are statistically super rare and you're way more likely to die in your bathtub, but I digress) and last (and least) is political reasons. The last reason is usually reactionary. i.e. it's not that the parents don't send the kid to school because of "whatever", it's that they pull the kid out of school after "whatever" has set them off.
An anecdote, but when I was younger there was a teacher at our middle school who was a communist.. I mean that literally.. This guy didn't teach about communism and capitalism and then compare the differences.. He didn't teach the history of communism... Those would be reasonable. This guy taught that communism was "the way". He PUSHED communist ideology in every aspect of his classes. I know of 2 parents who jerked their kids out of the school over that. Our district population is pretty conservative, but the district employees are way more liberal. It's caused a lot tension of the years. And, I'm sure, it's caused more than a few people to go the home-school route.
Out here "home school" isn't really what most people imagine.. It's more.. collective. Like, it's not a mom teaching her kids.. It's a mom teaching her kids and the kids of 5 of her neighbors.. More like that.. More efficient I guess.
On second thought, no you pretty much didn't notice. Think of how incredibly long that is.
Round about 300+ days.