That's a harder one. Part of what keeps wages low is that there's so many government programs for the poor. There's stories that large companies like Walmart will hire people to help other employees with government programs like food stamps. People will work there for lower pay because one benefit of working there is having someone help out in getting the government supplement their income. This means Walmart, or whatever, is needing to hire more people but if that one person can keep 100 other people working for lower wages because they can help them navigate government programs then that's a huge cost savings for them.
Do we end the government programs like food stamps so Walmart has to pay a decent wage? It's likely to work but that means creating hardship for a lot of people until market forces work their way out.
In a broad sense wages must track inflation or at some point the economy falls apart. We can't make food so expensive that nobody eats. So, there will be corrections in prices and wages so farmers can afford to grow food and people can afford to buy the food. Maybe the solution to this is to just wait until the problem gets bad enough that wages match prices again.
Holy shit. No, MacMann. The answer is to get your balls out of your purse and have your elected officials legislate livable minimum wages and baseline working conditions and to regulate markets so that employes can't abuse programs to that extent.
It's bonkers and supremely cynical to think that social safety net is merely a lever for corporations to exploit the poor. If it's being abused that way, put a stop to it.
The lack of political will from working and middle class in the USA is extremely troubling to watch.
I've been subjected to 2A propaganda from down south all my life. Your democracy is being eaten alive for profit and its crickets. For a supposed superpower, American citizens sure seem like a bunch of pussies these days. Tread on me, daddy...
I completely disagree. Just because Jews used to live on the land that is modern day Israel doesn't mean they had claim to it thousands of years after they lost control of it. If that's that way the world worked the US would go back to the Native Americans and most countries would have radically different borders.
Assuming you're American, but not a Native American, you admit you're exactly what you're criticizing; someone who thinks you're entitled to other peoples' land. You seem to think it unrealistic that the US would dissolve itself to return the land to Indigenous people. Why don't you feel the same way for Israel? Is it a matter of time? The USA is only a couple hundred years old. When will Israel become legitimate? After its centennial? If you think Israel is an illegitimate state but the USA is not, then the answer is antisemitism. Particularly the racism of unequal expectations.
The irony is that in the case of Israel, the Indigenous language of 4000 years ago is now spoken today and the state of Israel could be considered one of history's most successful examples of decolonization (from both British and Ottoman empires). I don't really buy this, because Indigeneity is something of a mug's game and you could point to both Jews and Arabs as being indigenous merely depending on how far back in time you want to go. Regardless, Indigeneity was but one of many reasons why Israel was selected by colonial powers and Zionists to be the new/old homeland for Jews. Furthermore, Jews have maintained continuous ties to this land. It's not like they left for thousands of years and just came back en-masse. That's just ignorance.
I consider things like land grabs in West Bank to be heinous in today's context. However, I have no patience for arguments based on Israel being an "illegitimate" state. The state exists as a result of many interacting historical forces. If you're still hung up on current day legitimacy, you might want to think about the time leading up to and after Israel's independence and the Israeli-Arab war: Were Arabs invited to stay? Who ordered Arabs to vacate the land and why? How many Arabs currently live in Israel and what are their legal rights and status? How many Jews currently live in any other middle eastern countries and why their complete and total evacuation?
Nobody who eats chickens ever wanted it.
Many people who eat meat are critical of industrial livestock production and unimaginable levels of cruelty and suffering resulting from it. What are you even on about?
Pokeman was a trend. Mojitos were a trend. Gluten Free is a trend. There are all kinds of trends. They tend disappear after a few years. Psychedelic mushrooms were huge in the 70s and 90s. Coke was huge in the 80s. Things like this come and go.
Your examples of trends (I think you meant fads) are bonkers. Pokémon is the highest grossing media franchise in history worldwide and still holds that title in 2023. Mojitos have been around for hundreds of years and remain popular to this day. Mushrooms are still out there, being consumed; now they are being keenly studied for medical potential.
You're missing the point. This document is not curriculum, it is not a text book, nor is it even examining math teaching technique in general.
This document is specifically for the topic of examining how racism manifests in math teaching methodology and strategies to mitigate that.
It's clearly a supplement.
Are you really surprised that racism is discussed in a document titled "A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction Exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their instructional practice"?
What your response implies is that you don't believe there should be any discussion within teacher professional development materials reflecting on where racism exists and how to combat it. Am I getting that right?
See p. 7 for examples of what, according to these curriculums, is considered "racist." Things like there being a "right" answer, and tracking progress (grades).
Did you even read this document you linked? If you had, you'd realize it doesn't make any such claims e.g. that there being a right answer is racist. Rather, it discusses how focusing on correct answers at the exclusion of other aspects of teaching can be detrimental.
It seems to me that you didn't actually read any of it or understand the context (page 66 for this example).
From TFA:
Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer. And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives. Students can arrive at the right answer without grasping the bigger concept; or they can have an “aha” moment when they see why they got an answer wrong. Sometimes a wrong answer sheds more light than a right answer.
According to all the latest reports, there was no truth in any of the earlier reports.
