We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline

I do want to point out that at least one thing I said based on my "anecdotal" evidence is quite true. That's from the link Schraf gave. This was at National Coalition for the Homeless Page Not Found - National Coalition for the Homeless.Overall, I think my main point is valid. People who live on the streets have normally chosen to do so either because they like it better (the few) or they prefer it to giving up their addictions (the majority).Those who go homeless because they lose their job generally don't stay homeless long, because they can get help. I just want to point out that families are not stuck in situations where they can make only one request. Being turned down at one shelter does not mean you are on the streets. You can try the next one and the next one. (It used to be you could also try churches, but most of them use some ministry that all of them give very small amounts of money to.)In other words a 52% denial rate does not mean that 52% of the families were denied.I was wondering, if these homeless people are people who lost jobs, why haven't I been able to find any of them, and why do the homeless people I do find tell me there's not many of them.My answer at this point, from the site I just looked at, is that those who lose jobs get help, just like I said, and aren't homeless long.

I talk too much, and it carries over into my writing. I was already wondering yesterday what the original point of all this was.I don't disagree with your point, neither now that you've restated it, nor earlier. I think it was DrBill who said that the "American dream" (my words, I think, not his) is lost, and many people can't own a home anymore.I don't believe that's true. I'm not talking about moving to a hellhole in Detroit. I'm talking about someone saying, "I don't like the way I live. I should be able to have my own home." The person who does that can still accomplish that, slowly but surely, here in the United States, even if they have to start with a minimum wage job.They may not be able to do it in a city, but there are still plenty of nice places where a person could "pursue their dreams."I'm not saying anything more than that.

I'm not following the story. Did the parents get fined for the kid's crime? Did the police confiscate the parents' house? Did the parents just happen to lose the house on the same day, and you're pointing out that they couldn't get a lawyer? Could you fill in the blanks for me?

Ok, let's leave that one there. Why would that happen, other than the mental illness you mention? Even at McDonald's you get raises and progress over time. My wife was working at McDonald's when I met her. She was 20, and she was making more money than I was.Interestingly enough, as an aside, that was in Germany (since Europe's been discussed in this thread), and she was making less than she would have been in the U.S., but she was making more than my landlady's son, who was around thirty. He was making DM 2700/mo (in 1987), and I remember wondering how he was making ends meet with the amount of money the German government must have been taking from that 2700. He had a wife and new baby. He did seem to be doing fine, though.

Could be. The health care over there is much more affordable (or was in 1990) than over here, and so is health insurance (of course, since those go hand in hand). Public transportation is also better (although not as good as I had as a kid in Taiwan in the early 70's, and perhaps not as good as say, San Francisco with BART and the trolleys or NY with its subways, I'm not sure).I don't know about subsidized housing. The landlords and landladies I had over there didn't sound like they were being subsidized.I definitely think a lot less people fall through the cracks over there.As one more aside, I found out today that I can't give blood indefinitely because of I was in Germany over 5 years between 1980 and 1996, and because more than 6 months of that was in the military. Mad Cow disease is what the nurse told me.

No, of course not, but that's not what I was saying. I was asking why anyone would be stuck at minimum wage forever. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone holding a job for a long period would be at minimum wage the whole time, or that they couldn't eventually find another minimum wage job that wouldn't leave them there. I never made minimum wage even working for Manpower temp services, although sometimes I didn't make much more.

Did they say how much? Health-wise drinkers have advantages over non-drinkers in most areas as long as it's one or two drinks (12 oz. beer, 4 oz. wine, or l oz. liquor) a day. They do worse if they drink more.I'm curious if that applies in the non-health area, too.Edit: Well, shoot, Mr. Jack had already answered this. I think I've heard mild drinkers (as described above) are better educated and eat better, too.2nd edit: And what does Mr. Jack mean by his symbols? Is that 2000 British pounds of alcohol per year? Is it 2000 liters? Six liters or six pounds worth of alcohol a day both seem a bit more than moderate. I suspect I can't read his language there.[This message has been edited by truthlover, 08-13-2003][This message has been edited by truthlover, 08-13-2003]

You didn't say anything that would convince me this is true.I acknowledge that a person who is not willing to move may not be able to own a home in their area in some cases. That I would have acknowledged from the beginning. So that's all beside the point to me.

Well, since I don't think it has anything to do with no prayer in the schools, I guess this doesn't apply to me. (After all, if the National Day of Prayer changes nothing, why would prayer in schools change anything?)Things did start changing dramatically in the 60's. I've got to think that the people playing a role in the 60's had a lot to do with that. I suspect many of them feel real good about that. I think they did both good and bad, as most of us always do. Surely your concern is not attributing a lot of impact to them, right?I was only making one point, which is that dangerous crime has increased, and that *dramatically*, since the 50's, and I can't imagine why that's not obvious to anyone over 30.I said nothing about the causes, and I am neither a member of the Christian Coalition, nor particularly a right-winger.

The number and relationship of parents has a very measurable effect.In some ideal world, maybe we could compare the effect of a loving, stable, single parent home with the effect of a loving, stable traditional couple home. Since loving and stable aren't very measurable, that's difficult to do.We can measure the effect of kids raised by single parents versus kids raised by couple that stayed together.

I knew this. I look forward to living like this, which wasn't very possible in the portions of America I've lived in, but is happening where I am now.Are you just objecting to my use of the word "traditional"? This is the second time this has been pointed out to me. Is it just because of how I'm saying things, or does it have an application to my general point?If you're just objecting to my use of the word "traditional," then I stand corrected. If it applies to my general point, I'm missing what you're trying to tell me.

My guess is that it has more to do with capitalism. It costs a lot of money to set up a movie theater, and I suspect a smoking movie theater would be popular and make money for about two weeks. Then it would be uncomfortable for all but a very few people, and there would be no attendance.