Clinton was a superb communicator, but his strategy of jumping on the free trade bandwagon to take the issue away from Bush senior resulted in the acceleration of the creation of the rust belt. On top of that, the war on labor and defined benefit pension plans has created a huge percentage of impoverished elderly. Title IX, by creating m…
Clinton was a superb communicator, but his strategy of jumping on the free trade bandwagon to take the issue away from Bush senior resulted in the acceleration of the creation of the rust belt. On top of that, the war on labor and defined benefit pension plans has created a huge percentage of impoverished elderly. Title IX, by creating more opportunities for women in the economy, had the unintended consequence of reducing the quality of the teaching workforce. So when Americans needed to become a whole lot smarter about the importance of lifetime savings for retirement, our investment in the educational processes that would have given that a chance of happening went the other way.
I like Bill and voted for him twice. And, to be fair, he had a horrible Congress to deal with, but he was definitely not the leader on the economy that we so desperately needed at the time. In a very real sense, the unfocused somewhat irrational anger that so many feel, is what has enabled Trump to harness that. If he could give a coherent speech the way Hitler could, he would be a lot more dangerous than he is; and the lower half of the economy and how that mess was created is the wellspring of the whole MAGA movement.
Dems need to find a way to reign in corporate power and reverse the movement away from defined benefit plans.
Title IX was not not enacted to create more opportunities for women in the workforce. And it did not reduce the quality of teaching of the teaching workforce.
It added sex as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
The major impact of Title IX was a considerable increase in the number of female students participating in organized sports within American academic institutions followed by growing interest in initiating and developing programs which would pursue feminist principles in relationship to concerns surrounding issues dealing with girls and women's equality and equity in sport.
So I respectfully disagree. If you look at the chart that the folks at the Visual Capitalist did last week on the ROI of various degrees, it makes it perfectly clear that going into education is a losing proposition that requires saints. That was NOT the case before the cultural change that Title IX signaled that we were going to insist upon going forward. The situation in education is actually far worse than the charts indicate, because the impact on education has not bee uniform across all disciplines. The STEM subjects have been hit much harder than the others, and that shows up in what John Allen Paulos termed "Innumeracy" by society in general in his famous book of the same title. Just talk to some kids these days. Grade inflation is everywhere and competency is way down.
Nevertheless, Susan is correct on some counts. It was Title IX that forced university institutions to give female athletes their own locker room space (not shared when the guys were not using the locker room) and increase their budget. That was a big deal.
However, to the point of "grade inflation is everywhere, and competency is way down: " Ya...unfortunately, I'd have to agree with this particular statement. As an educator for 27 years, I have had to experience the "grade inflation" to which Craig refers. This was mandated through our principal at the orders of the school board. The feeling at that time was that it wouldn't make any difference as to what the numerical value of the grade was, as students would rise or fall to that grade anyway. This did no one...and I mean *no one* any favors. Additionally for a while, it seemed every two years we, as educators, were getting a new "program" to help us teach students, which eventually, would be discarded in favor of another new program. Too many of us stayed with education either because of the love for teaching or the salient reason of being too invested within the retirement package offered by our district. I know there were some who wanted to leave, and in fact, eventually did. The problem with this particular issue was the decline in real passion to teach. I have to admit I did my job well, but here is the underlying important element: I had no passion for the job in the middle to the end of my retirement. That not only hurt me, but it also hurt the kids for whom I was responsible. Thirty years is the career length for teaching; I completed 27. I knew I had to go.
My view is that Rush, racism, Ronnie and Rupert are the “wellspring of the whole MAGA movement. Me and my seven sibs were born poor and had to work hard during this period, but it was the convenient pushing of scapegoats that hit the amygdala of the men in my orbit. May not have been just my crowd. Granted, so many suffered a loss of livelihood, which precipitated so many changes, but having hate geared to scapegoats caused way more problems when too many thought it was a solution.
Craig, Your critique of Clinton’s economic policies, indeed, is merited. The point, however, is to identify comparably abled communicators to fill in on current economic matters where Harris and Walz fall short. While, as part of this thread, I mentioned Biden’s chief economic advisor Jared Bernstein, another commenter Gregg provided a more comprehensive list I plan to include in a letter to the Harris campaign I will deploy sometime today.
I agree. Adding, I think that part of the issue is a failure to clearly articulate some things that need to be done. The whole behavioral theory work that has been done around nudges and default choices needs to be applied to lifetime wealth creation. The law can help with that. We are spending huge amounts of our GDP on advertising and improving its effectiveness. Well, that drains wealth away from the susceptible. I'm not suggesting that we curtail advertising legally, but we do need to create structures that offset it. Defined benefit plans are a fantastic way of doing that. They have a proven track record as effective builders of the middle class.
I actually think both Kamala and Tim are pretty good communicators. What they lack is a coherent economic message that resonates.
I am missing some valuable point here? MAGA understand something? What ,specifically , plus detail please. All I see is corporate stranglehold while’ promised growth ‘ widening the gap between …more rich people …cleverly disguised to falsely appease the disenfranchised …with the same lies. Harris quite succinctly addresses that, no?
So this is actually more spot on than it might at first appear. Ned Ludd and his ilk were angry at the loss of their livelihoods by shifting economic forces that were beyond their control, beyond their understanding, and which benefitted the already wealthy. They clearly understood that they were getting the short end of the stick, and they were seething with rage with no effective way to direct it. That's pretty well describes a big part of the MAGA crowd. Also, I do think we can talk to them, but gaining their trust such that they are not just tuning us out is incredibly difficult. They know that the Dems were willing participants in rush toward free trade fiasco. The instant tariff thing Trump rambles on about would only make things worse, but it clearly resonates.
Another thing that would help beyond using the corporate tax system to incentivize defined benefit plans, would be to gradually nudge all publicly traded corporations to be rechartered as American Corporations under a whole new set of governance regulations that are suitable for institutions that are a critical part of a society that calls itself a democracy. We need a whole new New Deal, and a strong easily understood set of objectives that can be messaged.
Craig, You clearly sing from the same hymnal that I do for the most part. Educating to sell it while fending off 'socialism' charges, takes time and, in your words - trust that we don't have just now though. Yet to right the economic ship for all Americans, all this must be pursued longer term. I'm fairly certain Joe Biden knows that and affected as much as he could - brilliantly. Will Harris carry all that forward. It's my hope.
In different words, I have 'pointed' at several of those same issues. I've opined in this space that if democrats are to significantly chip into the votes they gave away to trade agreements, would require uncommon (risky), and patient honesty of them. I, and I'm sure you know the histories point for point; date for date, coming as we do out of heavy manufacturing; You out of aerospace - I out of transportation of another sort, but technical careers in heavy manufacturing industry all the same.
Me too, Patricia. It's corporations -- fair taxation, fair wages, closing their loop holes, etc., regulation, in other words, that's a huge part of the problem. Furthermore, most of those who stormed the capitol on Jan. 6 had good paying jobs -- they were there for other reasons, not financial.
I can't agree that it is a "stellar" explanation as it comes across as blaming women for the downfall in education when it is a far more complex issue than Title IX giving gender as a protected class. He does bring up some good points.
Your point that it would take three years and the will to learn for MAGA to understand is grossly underestimated, in both the will to learn and the time frame for understanding.
Ally, re women teachers,I read it differently I took Craig’s comment as a compliment to women teachers, in that “when they weren’t there, education suffered”. That was my take. The Koch Dark Money has been dismantling education for decades, on purpose. A fair wage for teachers was crushed by the anti-unionism fear mongering of the Reagan Myth Years
Craig, I had to read your third line several times in order to get (I think) what you were saying; that by giving women more economic opportunity in other fields, the quality of teachers suffered as an unintended consequence. It wasn't the legislation that did it, it was more the factors at play that you describe as the acceleration of the rust belt (moving US manufacturing jobs overseas for pennies on the dollar) and the war on labor and defined benefit pension plans.
You then blame the lack of women in the teaching profession, with your statement "when Americans needed to become a whole lot smarter about the importance of lifetime savings for retirement, our investment in the educational processes that would have given that a chance of happening went the other way." Why not blame the lack of teacher pay and benefits in general instead?
Craig, maybe I am misreading your comments. Are you saying that hiring opportunities for more women to teach resulted in lower teaching quality? I hope not. But if you are, do you have any data to confirm that or is it purely your opinion?
Which is part / parcel of why 'Slick Willie' only got my vote once. Bill's rolling manufacturing massacre certainly cost Hillary some votes, as well as some other democrats; Votes the party may not get back in my lifetime anyway.
I can't disagree. It's always a tough call. Would we have been better off in the long run if GHW Bush had won a second term and taken all of the blame for the Reagan nonsense into the Republican party where it belonged. We could debate this one for a very long time. Whatever, if Kamala and Tim can get some good advisors and put together an easy to understand second New Deal policy set, I think we will be in good shape. But they have to do that. They can't be caretakers of the Democratic legacy. That will just create more MAGA supporters who are angry with the whole system and want to see it burned down. The single most important fact about the economy that Democrats MUST focus on is the percentage of American households who have zero exposure to the stock markets. It's roughly 50%, which means that half of American households have zero meaningful retirement savings. That's a recipe for another would be dictator to take advantage of the mess. We've got to stop talking about how good the economy is or has been. For way too many it's been one rolling disaster.
"Title IX, by creating more opportunities for women in the economy, had the unintended consequence of reducing the quality of the teaching workforce. " You may not understand what you are talking about here.
Perhaps, but there is a rock solid reality that 50 years ago the odds were stacked such that most (not all) highly capable women who wanted a professional career went into teaching. They were underpaid and under appreciated. The women's movement changed that landscape dramatically, leaving teachers still underpaid, but gutting their ranks of the many thousands of highly capable women who would have otherwise gone in that direction.
In my career at Boeing I saw many talented women engineers and assembly workers who could not have gotten those kinds of jobs in the 1950s and 60s. Those doors were closed, so they went elsewhere, and often that meant teaching. There was and still is a lot of gender discrimination in the workplace, but it is mostly on the job now and not nearly as much as it once was at the employment office.
Clinton was a superb communicator, but his strategy of jumping on the free trade bandwagon to take the issue away from Bush senior resulted in the acceleration of the creation of the rust belt. On top of that, the war on labor and defined benefit pension plans has created a huge percentage of impoverished elderly. Title IX, by creating more opportunities for women in the economy, had the unintended consequence of reducing the quality of the teaching workforce. So when Americans needed to become a whole lot smarter about the importance of lifetime savings for retirement, our investment in the educational processes that would have given that a chance of happening went the other way.
I like Bill and voted for him twice. And, to be fair, he had a horrible Congress to deal with, but he was definitely not the leader on the economy that we so desperately needed at the time. In a very real sense, the unfocused somewhat irrational anger that so many feel, is what has enabled Trump to harness that. If he could give a coherent speech the way Hitler could, he would be a lot more dangerous than he is; and the lower half of the economy and how that mess was created is the wellspring of the whole MAGA movement.
Dems need to find a way to reign in corporate power and reverse the movement away from defined benefit plans.
Title IX was not not enacted to create more opportunities for women in the workforce. And it did not reduce the quality of teaching of the teaching workforce.
It added sex as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
The major impact of Title IX was a considerable increase in the number of female students participating in organized sports within American academic institutions followed by growing interest in initiating and developing programs which would pursue feminist principles in relationship to concerns surrounding issues dealing with girls and women's equality and equity in sport.
So I respectfully disagree. If you look at the chart that the folks at the Visual Capitalist did last week on the ROI of various degrees, it makes it perfectly clear that going into education is a losing proposition that requires saints. That was NOT the case before the cultural change that Title IX signaled that we were going to insist upon going forward. The situation in education is actually far worse than the charts indicate, because the impact on education has not bee uniform across all disciplines. The STEM subjects have been hit much harder than the others, and that shows up in what John Allen Paulos termed "Innumeracy" by society in general in his famous book of the same title. Just talk to some kids these days. Grade inflation is everywhere and competency is way down.
Nevertheless, Susan is correct on some counts. It was Title IX that forced university institutions to give female athletes their own locker room space (not shared when the guys were not using the locker room) and increase their budget. That was a big deal.
However, to the point of "grade inflation is everywhere, and competency is way down: " Ya...unfortunately, I'd have to agree with this particular statement. As an educator for 27 years, I have had to experience the "grade inflation" to which Craig refers. This was mandated through our principal at the orders of the school board. The feeling at that time was that it wouldn't make any difference as to what the numerical value of the grade was, as students would rise or fall to that grade anyway. This did no one...and I mean *no one* any favors. Additionally for a while, it seemed every two years we, as educators, were getting a new "program" to help us teach students, which eventually, would be discarded in favor of another new program. Too many of us stayed with education either because of the love for teaching or the salient reason of being too invested within the retirement package offered by our district. I know there were some who wanted to leave, and in fact, eventually did. The problem with this particular issue was the decline in real passion to teach. I have to admit I did my job well, but here is the underlying important element: I had no passion for the job in the middle to the end of my retirement. That not only hurt me, but it also hurt the kids for whom I was responsible. Thirty years is the career length for teaching; I completed 27. I knew I had to go.
My view is that Rush, racism, Ronnie and Rupert are the “wellspring of the whole MAGA movement. Me and my seven sibs were born poor and had to work hard during this period, but it was the convenient pushing of scapegoats that hit the amygdala of the men in my orbit. May not have been just my crowd. Granted, so many suffered a loss of livelihood, which precipitated so many changes, but having hate geared to scapegoats caused way more problems when too many thought it was a solution.
Craig, Your critique of Clinton’s economic policies, indeed, is merited. The point, however, is to identify comparably abled communicators to fill in on current economic matters where Harris and Walz fall short. While, as part of this thread, I mentioned Biden’s chief economic advisor Jared Bernstein, another commenter Gregg provided a more comprehensive list I plan to include in a letter to the Harris campaign I will deploy sometime today.
Woof, woof, woof, woof woof
I agree. Adding, I think that part of the issue is a failure to clearly articulate some things that need to be done. The whole behavioral theory work that has been done around nudges and default choices needs to be applied to lifetime wealth creation. The law can help with that. We are spending huge amounts of our GDP on advertising and improving its effectiveness. Well, that drains wealth away from the susceptible. I'm not suggesting that we curtail advertising legally, but we do need to create structures that offset it. Defined benefit plans are a fantastic way of doing that. They have a proven track record as effective builders of the middle class.
I actually think both Kamala and Tim are pretty good communicators. What they lack is a coherent economic message that resonates.
Craig!!! Stellar explanation. Getting MAGA to understand what you just said would take 3 years and a willing audience however
I am missing some valuable point here? MAGA understand something? What ,specifically , plus detail please. All I see is corporate stranglehold while’ promised growth ‘ widening the gap between …more rich people …cleverly disguised to falsely appease the disenfranchised …with the same lies. Harris quite succinctly addresses that, no?
"MAGA" has been with us for a long, long time. Decades ago we called them "Luddites". Even before that Mark Twain satirized them.
Proud anti intellectualism is an American trait. Unfortunately.
So this is actually more spot on than it might at first appear. Ned Ludd and his ilk were angry at the loss of their livelihoods by shifting economic forces that were beyond their control, beyond their understanding, and which benefitted the already wealthy. They clearly understood that they were getting the short end of the stick, and they were seething with rage with no effective way to direct it. That's pretty well describes a big part of the MAGA crowd. Also, I do think we can talk to them, but gaining their trust such that they are not just tuning us out is incredibly difficult. They know that the Dems were willing participants in rush toward free trade fiasco. The instant tariff thing Trump rambles on about would only make things worse, but it clearly resonates.
Another thing that would help beyond using the corporate tax system to incentivize defined benefit plans, would be to gradually nudge all publicly traded corporations to be rechartered as American Corporations under a whole new set of governance regulations that are suitable for institutions that are a critical part of a society that calls itself a democracy. We need a whole new New Deal, and a strong easily understood set of objectives that can be messaged.
Craig, You clearly sing from the same hymnal that I do for the most part. Educating to sell it while fending off 'socialism' charges, takes time and, in your words - trust that we don't have just now though. Yet to right the economic ship for all Americans, all this must be pursued longer term. I'm fairly certain Joe Biden knows that and affected as much as he could - brilliantly. Will Harris carry all that forward. It's my hope.
In different words, I have 'pointed' at several of those same issues. I've opined in this space that if democrats are to significantly chip into the votes they gave away to trade agreements, would require uncommon (risky), and patient honesty of them. I, and I'm sure you know the histories point for point; date for date, coming as we do out of heavy manufacturing; You out of aerospace - I out of transportation of another sort, but technical careers in heavy manufacturing industry all the same.
Me too, Patricia. It's corporations -- fair taxation, fair wages, closing their loop holes, etc., regulation, in other words, that's a huge part of the problem. Furthermore, most of those who stormed the capitol on Jan. 6 had good paying jobs -- they were there for other reasons, not financial.
We’d best do it in 2 ( years) as 2026 is the time to rid the ones left..maggots that is ✔️😉
Yep
I can't agree that it is a "stellar" explanation as it comes across as blaming women for the downfall in education when it is a far more complex issue than Title IX giving gender as a protected class. He does bring up some good points.
Your point that it would take three years and the will to learn for MAGA to understand is grossly underestimated, in both the will to learn and the time frame for understanding.
Ally, re women teachers,I read it differently I took Craig’s comment as a compliment to women teachers, in that “when they weren’t there, education suffered”. That was my take. The Koch Dark Money has been dismantling education for decades, on purpose. A fair wage for teachers was crushed by the anti-unionism fear mongering of the Reagan Myth Years
I read him that way too Dave; Complimentary.
Craig, I had to read your third line several times in order to get (I think) what you were saying; that by giving women more economic opportunity in other fields, the quality of teachers suffered as an unintended consequence. It wasn't the legislation that did it, it was more the factors at play that you describe as the acceleration of the rust belt (moving US manufacturing jobs overseas for pennies on the dollar) and the war on labor and defined benefit pension plans.
You then blame the lack of women in the teaching profession, with your statement "when Americans needed to become a whole lot smarter about the importance of lifetime savings for retirement, our investment in the educational processes that would have given that a chance of happening went the other way." Why not blame the lack of teacher pay and benefits in general instead?
Craig, maybe I am misreading your comments. Are you saying that hiring opportunities for more women to teach resulted in lower teaching quality? I hope not. But if you are, do you have any data to confirm that or is it purely your opinion?
I could never make up my mind regarding Clinton's 'strategy' Craig.
That's simple - it was to win. He adapted to the political landscape brilliantly.
Which is part / parcel of why 'Slick Willie' only got my vote once. Bill's rolling manufacturing massacre certainly cost Hillary some votes, as well as some other democrats; Votes the party may not get back in my lifetime anyway.
I can't disagree. It's always a tough call. Would we have been better off in the long run if GHW Bush had won a second term and taken all of the blame for the Reagan nonsense into the Republican party where it belonged. We could debate this one for a very long time. Whatever, if Kamala and Tim can get some good advisors and put together an easy to understand second New Deal policy set, I think we will be in good shape. But they have to do that. They can't be caretakers of the Democratic legacy. That will just create more MAGA supporters who are angry with the whole system and want to see it burned down. The single most important fact about the economy that Democrats MUST focus on is the percentage of American households who have zero exposure to the stock markets. It's roughly 50%, which means that half of American households have zero meaningful retirement savings. That's a recipe for another would be dictator to take advantage of the mess. We've got to stop talking about how good the economy is or has been. For way too many it's been one rolling disaster.
Alleluia, brother.
"Title IX, by creating more opportunities for women in the economy, had the unintended consequence of reducing the quality of the teaching workforce. " You may not understand what you are talking about here.
Perhaps, but there is a rock solid reality that 50 years ago the odds were stacked such that most (not all) highly capable women who wanted a professional career went into teaching. They were underpaid and under appreciated. The women's movement changed that landscape dramatically, leaving teachers still underpaid, but gutting their ranks of the many thousands of highly capable women who would have otherwise gone in that direction.
In my career at Boeing I saw many talented women engineers and assembly workers who could not have gotten those kinds of jobs in the 1950s and 60s. Those doors were closed, so they went elsewhere, and often that meant teaching. There was and still is a lot of gender discrimination in the workplace, but it is mostly on the job now and not nearly as much as it once was at the employment office.