I recall more than a few "tests" we "had" to perform on network saturation at work "back in the day".

Best "tool"? DOOM over IPX/SPX.

Fun times.

Follow the link provided by the GP. It focused on construction jobs.

Regarding farm hands -- again, same idea. Ever hear of Cesar Chavez? He felt the same way about mass importation of unskilled labor for the migrant farmers.

Blaming the GOP is idiotic. It could have been stopped by any administration. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama (Hell, he had s supermajority in both houses!). As much as I don't like Trump, he slowed it down. He was also the only candidate back in 2016 who actually TALKED about it which likely got him elected. If he could do that, imagine what Obama could have done with his supermajority. And Biden? Undid everything Trump put in place and made it easier to walk across the border. All while telling us how "secure" it was. Then when NOBODY (not even that sides base) believed it they flipped the narrative to admitting it, but together a weak bill and then blamed the GOP for not accepting it. Awesome.

For the record, I'm a 'Never Trumper' and not a Republican. I think Trump is a psychopath with poor impulse control. I also don't think every single policy out of his administration was poison.

"Besides, Americans don't want to work in certain jobs [cnn.com], so those people have to work in them."

Of course Americans want to work those jobs. They have historically worked those jobs. They don't want to work them for what they are getting paid for them now with the import of mass amounts of unskilled labor.

40 years ago in CA, the entire plaster/painting industry was predominantly black. They saw their pay go for $20/hour, down to $15, per hours and eventually down to $9 per hour until they count even find work in their carrier because they were displaced by cheap imported labor. Same for construction workers. Walk in to a fast food joint in the early to mid 80s and you'd see mostly high-school students (one of them would have been me). Today, you see mostly Hispanics well over 25. There are exceptions, yes -- but it's pretty universal.

To say "Americans don't want to work in certain jobs" is very misleading. Many jobs never were meant to be careers to raise families -- and those that were ended up being priced down to becoming "never meant to raise a family" levels.

If they were really serious about this severe problem, they would kick all the people out of their state, so that nobody would ever see anyone else. Until humans are eliminated, Texas' vision cannot be fulfilled. FUCK HUMANS! (Err, I mean that figuratively, of course. You should never literally fuck a human. That's not even a thing, kids, I swear!)

Next step: State of Texas sues all their ISPs.

During alcohol prohibition, alcohol wasn't illegal to consume, posses or buy, it was only illegal to manufacture, transport and supply. In other words, alcohol prohibition was more like decriminalisation.

So decriminalisation was never really the solution because it leaves the supply in the hands of criminals and all the problems that creates.

What needs to happen is actual legalisation.

Unbelievable. You are looking at a symptom of the problem as the CAUSE.

Hint: Low-earning is far more common in single parent households. Solve that and the other bits will improve. There's a lot of problems that follow poverty -- but poverty isn't the cause -- it is itself a symptom! BTW, that also increases the likelihood of ending up on the wrong end of the justice system! You don't solve the damage caused by single parent households by tossing money at it!

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/statisti...

In 2021, 9.5% of children living with two parents lived below the poverty level, compared to 31.7% of children living with a single parent.
Children living with only their mothers in 2021 were more than twice as likely to live in poverty than those living with only their fathers (35.0% vs. 17.4%).

"However, we should not punish children for the faults of their parents"

We should punish everybody for the faults of parents? Is that really the solution? Penalize kids who have the skillset so those who dont have a chance to move up a notch? That's not really been working, has it?

"You can't regulate out the single parent household"

You kind of can. Tax incentives. You'll never eliminate it, but if can at least get it above 50% in any given community you'll get way more bang for your buck in terms of student achievement.

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/statisti....

"In 2022, the majority of white children and Hispanic children lived in two-parent homes (75.6% and 67.5% respectively) compared with four in to (43.0%) Black children."

And it's much much worse in some communities -- I've seen as low as 30% in two parent households.

Clearly tossing money to "fix" the problem isn't working.

You clearly are a troll, but I'll respond.

https://upcea.edu/new-research...

"Across all populations, 42% of respondents cited financial reasons for stopping out of higher education. However, examining reasons by generation and gender, those priorities began to shift. Thirty-two percent of students say they left college for family or personal commitments and this was more prevalent among mid-millennials."

But wait, there's more!

“Not surprisingly, family commitments were very important to mid-millennials. Many are working parents who had to make the choice between going to school or providing for their family,” said Smith. “Gen Z, on the other hand, cares more about a school being the right fit for them, and they are willing to pay for it.
Of this youngest generation of students included in the dataset, 43% of Gen Z said their primary reason for leaving school was because the school was “not the right fit,” signaling their priorities aren’t tied to financial independence like the older demographics."

So, a lot of those "financial reasons" when you drill down are due to working adults with kids -- with a HEALTHY chunk of Gen Zs saying "bah -- this isn't for me".

Moral of the story: "Financial reasons" is a huge spectrum which covers a wide category of individual choice and not family or individual wealth! Things like "I've got to raise kids!".

It should be a rare person who has a kid BEFORE college. Doing so is clearly not racial discrimination -- but a choice.

"One word. Money."

One Acronym: WPFS (Weighted Pupil Finance Strategies).

California has tried that (and is still trying it). Literally taking significant amounts of money from better performing schools (usually less minorities) and giving it to schools with more kids in urban areas with what they call "disadvantaged" students. All to address the RAG "Racial Achievement Gap". Results? The better schools who used to have more money did not do worse. They continued to produce good and well prepared students. The schools who received the huge boost in, your words "Money", did not improve. We're nearing 20 years of doing this.

I'm thinking the issue is coming down to three words: "Two Parent Households".

I discuss that in this sub thread a bit further down. Take a peek.

"Affirmative action cannot overcome single parent households."

I believe that is certainly part of it. I recall reading a study regarding prison populations (comparing Compton to Hawthorne as places where felons were raised) It turns out Compton at the time had a higher 2-parent household but otherwise both ethnically and economically similar. The prison population was significantly lower for those raised in Compton (like ~35% to ~55% hawthorn and Compton). This wasn't the point of the study -- it was looking at other things but included that statistic as a point of interest and further study and suggested that maybe there's a "critical point" where below a community doesn't benefit that number of 2 family households. I guess if single parent kids are exposed to enough two-parent households it rubs-off in some way?

I'll need to see if I can find that study again. I came across it around 5 years ago when studying Weighted-Pupil Finance Strategies (WPFs) -- which take money away from good performing schools and give it to schools with more "at risk" students to narrow the "racial achievement gap". I didn't work... The schools that were performing better continued to perform better 10 years later after losing a significant amount of funding -- and the schools that weren't performing as well (with higher numbers of minorities) continued to do worse.

BTW, we're stull pushing WPFs in CA -- and it's still not working.

"This is mostly due to english as a second language."

I'm not buying that. I think that loops back more single parent households. Significantly better than blacks (which is like 75%), hispanic households are closer to 55%.

"There's a good argument that minorities are disadvantaged by generations of discrimination, so efforts to reverse that are still needed"

There's evidence that letting folks in to college who haven't shown a scholastic history and test scores fail to complete college at significantly higher levels (and they are already at 30%-40%.

Only 46% of blacks make it to the finish line (and that's after decades of affirmative action). Compared to 72% of Asians, 67% of whites and 55% Hispanic.

The answer isn't to abandon college readiness evaluation tests... the answer is to figure out why they are so ill-prepared.

"The Mandalorian & Grogu" is set to be .. the biggest blockbuster...

I'm glad to hear that this movie, which is about to start filming, has already been determined to be so popular with the public, that they will be lining up around the block to get into the theater.

CO2 taxes would make the nuclear proposition must better from an economics point of view.