Trickle Down?

[BigRob]

Very interesting! Not ONE answer. . .

Too hot to handle?

Haha, no. I have been out of town all weekend, and only with my phone to look at internet.

I will come back to this this week and post a reply.

 

[Openmind]

Haha, no. I have been out of town all weekend, and only with my phone to look at internet.

I will come back to this this week and post a reply.

Hope it was a fun trip!

 

[BigRob]

And do you ever wonder how the "market" decides? Do you know, for exemple, that a care giver for chimpanzees in a zoo is paid MORE per hour than a licenced child care worker? Did you know that the guy keeping the monkey fed and happy makes more money than the licenced child care worker taking care of YOUR child while you're at work? Do you know the length of study a social worker goes through to be able to practice her skills where SHE/HE has the direct responsibility of anywhere from 40 to 95 people's life?

I can agree with the premise that not all professions are paid what the members of those professions think they ought to be paid.

I'm sorry if I sound emotional about this. The fact is that I graduated with a double major, in Economics and in Psychology. I had to make a choice what direction I wanted to go to for graduate studies. My husband (a businessman) pushed me to go to an MBA program. . .I did, but my heart wasn't in it. I completed my first year with a 3.8 average, but, since my husband's income was more than sufficient to allow me a non-economic choice, I decided to follow my heart and my conscience and to transfer to the Master of Social Work program in the same university. . .obviously, I had to start at year one of the graduate program again!

After 4 years of undergraduate degree, two bachelors degrees both with honors, college honors, Phi Beta Kappa, one year of MBA, and two years of Social work (including an average of 20 hours per week of internship in addition to the graduate course load), I obtained the job of my dream: Case manager for people with developmental disability (Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, Autism, etc. ). I was very lucky to be hired in an agency that "payed its social worker well," at a beginning salary of $40,000 a year. . .I made it to $51,000 after 7 years there!

Clearly you are doing what you want to do and feel you are called to do. That said, I would assume you did some research into what is involved in such a job before you graduated school with a degree to do that.

People often point to politicians and say "you knew the job description going in", and it seems to apply here as well. You knew what the work involved, and you chose to do it. It is like when a teacher gets upset because they are "underpaid." They knew the salary going in and certainly before they accepted the job.

And, NO Rob, with all due respect. . .you may MAKE 10X what I made each year, but as good as a guy as I believe you are, I do NOT believe you are worse 10X more than I do! And I do not believe that your work is worse 10X more to society than the work I did with the close to 200 disabled people and their families I served during that time!

I don't think I am better than anyone simply because my family has made a lot of money. I can readily admit that a lot of that (such as huge oil deals etc) is just luck.

That said, I don't set the premium that society is willing to pay to extract that oil and gas, the market does. One might say that the gas that is drilled goes to heat 10,000 homes. So what is greater? Who can really know, but the market has to decide.

Funny you should say that!
You are obviously well aware of one of the most well liked charity: Easter Seals! So cute all those developmentally kids running in the special olympics, makes you feel so good when you send money to "Jerry's kids" so they can go to camp. . .right? Because, obviously, without your "charity money" those poor kids would have no means of going to camp, righ?

Well, think again. I worked for many years as a case manager (master in social work) for people with developmental disabilities, in a large state agency. We worked closely (obviously) with Easter Seals. . .and many of my clients went to Summer camp through Eater Seals. Sounds good, right. . .nice to see your charity dollars in action, right? That is the proof that we don't need government to provide for those kids, right?

WRONG! About 3 months prior to the start of the Summer Camp, I would get a notice from Easter Seal of the dates and THE COST of those camps. The notice also included a warning: "Payment must be received at least 30 days before the beginning of the camp, or the camper will not be allowed to attend." A mistake?
NOT AT ALL! Parents called, told me their person with disability wanted to attend a specific session of Easter Seal's camp, and "I," as a case manager for that person, and as an employee of the agency that contracted with the State completed the paper work necessary for THE AGENCY to pay Easter Seals PRIOR to the person being allowed to be counted as a participant in that session of the camp! And the paper work AND PAYMENT had to be received by Easter Seals early enough, or they just cancelled the reserved spot for my client. . .without telling me. . .without telling the family, who had made plan during that ONLY annual week without having the charge of their disabled person to go across the US to attend the wedding of another of their children!

Oh, and, guess what. . .all those "volunteers" at Easter Seals, well. . . They were well intended, but, if my clients were disabled enough to need assistance with grooming, or eating, or a feeding tube, or whatever else. . .it met that my agency (with the funding from the State) had to NOT ONLY pay for the Summer camp, but ALSO provide a 1:1 assistant to that specific client!. . Evidently, we also paid for transportation to and from that camp!
I am still, to this day, wondering where all that charity money gather for "Jerry's kids" goes!

Funny, isn't it. . .the things we don't know about "charity!"

I think people need to do research into the organizations they give money to. There are numerous groups that spend the vast majority of what they bring in on programs and not on overhead etc. It might take a little longer to find them, but they are there.

Again, funny ou should say that! I had many clients with autism...mostly teenagers, although the rest of my case load were mostly adults.
One of my favorite client was a 16 year old teenager with severe autism. He was 6'2" and weigh 230lbs. He had a history of severe violence. . .his room had to be padded, his window was made of unbreakable plexiglass. . .he had broken too many windows, and he had opened his heads beating it against the walls.

He had an endearing habit: He loved to take people by the neck in the elbow of his one arm, while he rubbed his knuckes on top of their heads. . .once he got you, it took 3 men to make him let go. What complicated everything was that, you never knew if he reached out to take you by the neck to love you. . .or to punish you. It was anyone's guess!

So, this otherwise loveable young man (very handsome too!) was a real danger to both himself and others. He needed 24 hours AWAKE care (3 shifts of 1:1 helper, in addition of the two other attendants in the house at all time). He couldn't share the house he lived in with more than 2 other kids. . . who were also "high risks," although they were smaller, and not deadly.

This young man cost the agency $12,000 a MONTH at the age of 16 (in 1998). In 2003, he cost the agency (therefore the tax payers) $19,000 a month. He was healthy as a horse, probably will live for another 60 or 70 years.

I have no problem helping those who truly need it...but this man's case does not sound like the norm.

This is ONE of the 200 people who depended on me to organize their life, to keep them safe, to keep others safe from him. And you wonder why it costs so much in entitlements? I know you don't want us to just euthanize this young, healthy, but severely autistic man. So what? Release him on the street? Let a car run over him and kill him. . .or let him kill someone and send him to a criminally insane state Prison?

What's your solution?

It is like the healthcare debate. In my opinion the debate focused on the wrong issue. Instead of worrying about the "uninsured" we needed to be worrying about the "uninsurable."

That would make the pool much smaller, allowing for cuts, and at the same keeping in place safety nets for those who are truly in need.

Sure, we saw that with the last oil spill, right? They were sure worry about the safety of those workers on the platform!

No one wants to see their employees die...and the government's own investigation found that BP did not cut corners on safety to cause the deaths of these workers.

No, nothing wrong. . .if his companies makes money, and if his employees are not laid off to make more money in the stock market.
"big money" also doesn't have to be obscene! If a CEO makes 250 to 350 times what his lower employee makes, that IS big money. If he makes 500 + time what his lower employee makes. . .that is obscene!

It is not obscene. It is what the market determines is fair.

Wrong again, at least in if you talk about "the majority!". Did you check on United way? Even on the Red Cross. . . and as I said earlier. . .did you check on Ester Seals?

I am aware many groups do not give 100% to charity, but there are many groups out there that do give the vast majority of their donations.

 

[Openmind]

I can agree with the premise that not all professions are paid what the members of those professions think they ought to be paid.



Clearly you are doing what you want to do and feel you are called to do. That said, I would assume you did some research into what is involved in such a job before you graduated school with a degree to do that.

People often point to politicians and say "you knew the job description going in", and it seems to apply here as well. You knew what the work involved, and you chose to do it. It is like when a teacher gets upset because they are "underpaid." They knew the salary going in and certainly before they accepted the job.


I don't think I am better than anyone simply because my family has made a lot of money. I can readily admit that a lot of that (such as huge oil deals etc) is just luck.

That said, I don't set the premium that society is willing to pay to extract that oil and gas, the market does. One might say that the gas that is drilled goes to heat 10,000 homes. So what is greater? Who can really know, but the market has to decide.


I think people need to do research into the organizations they give money to. There are numerous groups that spend the vast majority of what they bring in on programs and not on overhead etc. It might take a little longer to find them, but they are there.



I have no problem helping those who truly need it...but this man's case does not sound like the norm.



It is like the healthcare debate. In my opinion the debate focused on the wrong issue. Instead of worrying about the "uninsured" we needed to be worrying about the "uninsurable."

That would make the pool much smaller, allowing for cuts, and at the same keeping in place safety nets for those who are truly in need.



No one wants to see their employees die...and the government's own investigation found that BP did not cut corners on safety to cause the deaths of these workers.


It is not obscene. It is what the market determines is fair.




I am aware many groups do not give 100% to charity, but there are many groups out there that do give the vast majority of their donations.

It is obvious that "the market" is your God. And unfortunately it is not a "fair" or "honest God!"

You are celebrating a manmade economic theory that has proven to be malleables by a few, rather than by "natural" forces.

By the way, that one young autistic client may be one of the "riskier" cases. . .but just look at it this way: in the agency where I worked, we were about 200 case managers. . .each one had an on-going case load of between 80 and 100 clients. . .I would say the AVERAGE cost to the system was about $6,000 a month per client (not including our salary, SSDI, or SSI, or SSA and medicare or medicaid). EACH ONE of those clients in THREE counties in California (multiply that by all the counties), probably cost the system an average of $9,000 a month.

And, obviously I knew what my "earnings" would be, and what the job consisted off! But, let's face it, someone must do that job. . .and I was lucky enough that selecting such a long education, with such low economic reward at the end didn't interefer with my family's ability to provide largely for each one of my family member. That is not always the case!

What infuriates me is that some people believe that, because they put in $100.00 a week in a Church collection box, they are being "charitable," but they look at teachers, social workers, and child care workers as "inferior beings, who just got into those jobs because they couldn't do any better!" NO ONE every looks at the "charity" that goes into knowingly selecting a profession based on the good it brings to people, versus the economic reward it brings!

There are many ways to be charitable. . .the number on one's tax return is probably NOT the most accurate!

 

[BigRob]

It is obvious that "the market" is your God. And unfortunately it is not a "fair" or "honest God!"

You are celebrating a manmade economic theory that has proven to be malleables by a few, rather than by "natural" forces.

By the way, that one young autistic client may be one of the "riskier" cases. . .but just look at it this way: in the agency where I worked, we were about 200 case managers. . .each one had an on-going case load of between 80 and 100 clients. . .I would say the AVERAGE cost to the system was about $6,000 a month per client (not including our salary, SSDI, or SSI, or SSA and medicare or medicaid). EACH ONE of those clients in THREE counties in California (multiply that by all the counties), probably cost the system an average of $9,000 a month.

Let me ask you this. As you clearly are familiar with how the system operated, in a your years did you see any examples of waste or things can could be done better and more efficiently?

And, obviously I knew what my "earnings" would be, and what the job consisted off! But, let's face it, someone must do that job. . .and I was lucky enough that selecting such a long education, with such low economic reward at the end didn't interefer with my family's ability to provide largely for each one of my family member. That is not always the case!

In your particular case it could count as charity I suppose, but did you find your personal scenario was the norm among your coworkers?

What infuriates me is that some people believe that, because they put in $100.00 a week in a Church collection box, they are being "charitable," but they look at teachers, social workers, and child care workers as "inferior beings, who just got into those jobs because they couldn't do any better!" NO ONE every looks at the "charity" that goes into knowingly selecting a profession based on the good it brings to people, versus the economic reward it brings!

There are many ways to be charitable. . .the number on one's tax return is probably NOT the most accurate!

I agree there are other ways to be charitable, but how can you quantify that in a study? I know this one considered volunteer hours, how else would you include such a thing?

 

[Openmind]

Let me ask you this. As you clearly are familiar with how the system operated, in a your years did you see any examples of waste or things can could be done better and more efficiently?



In your particular case it could count as charity I suppose, but did you find your personal scenario was the norm among your coworkers?



I agree there are other ways to be charitable, but how can you quantify that in a study? I know this one considered volunteer hours, how else would you include such a thing?

The main question is. . do I think I was the norm in knowingly selecting a career that didn't pay for the amount of education, but helped disenfranchised people?

I believe that a minimum of 75% of social workers or teachers who remain in the profession for over 3 years do it because of their deep commitment to helping others, rather than to "make money!"

In the office where I worked, we had 18 social workers. 15 had a masters degree in social work, education, or psychology. Two were married to business executives, one was an heiress receiving a sizeable annuity from oil and an annuity from her great grand father's fortune (Mudd family fortune). One was the wife of a fairly successful writer, three were first generation latina who each had seen their parents work in the strawberry fields and had siblings who were disabled. The others were married to contractors, or not single. Two were a lesbian couple. Two others were married to a teacher and another social worker in a different field.

NONE Of these people HAD to settle for the lower pay in social work. . .they did because they found it MET something to them, and to the families they worked with.

And, yes, I have seen waste, and inefficencies, and abuse of the system by those who were being served. . .but not the ones you would think would take advantage of the system!

One example: For a child to qualify for developmental disability services, there were very strict guidelines. . .one of which was an IQ below 70. However, some children with "light" autism have a much higher IQ, and still may qualify IF their light autism creates enough difficulties in their life (and their family's life) that they need extensive help to function or to stay safe.

One of those child was a lovely little girl. . .actually quite bright. She had to go through the qualification process for entitlement 3 times, before she was finally accepted. . .because the family took a private attorney. The father was a surgeon. The mother was a surgical nurse. She was an only child.

As soon as the qualification was over, we received a three page letter with their "demands!"

Not only did they want "respite" (a few hours each week of basically babysitting, so the parents can have some relief from their care giving duty), and transportation to and from school, and a 1:1 aide in school, and Easter Seal Summer camp. . .but also these "services!"

A 1:1 aide to drive the child to a location 45 miles away from her home to attend equestrian therapy, once a week. And cover of the cost of the equestrian therapy.

A 1:1 aide to drive the child to her "therapeutic dance lessons" once a week, and payment for those lessons

A 1:1 aide to drive the child and assist her during swimming lessons twice a week

A 1:1 aide to drive the child to music therapy classes and assist the music teacher. . . fully paid also

two 48 hours of "out of home respite" each month into a "weekend" respite camp.

Now, these demands were obviously excessive. . .why should a child, just because it is disabled, have EVERY "wants" paid for? Why should that child have access to all those "niceties" fully paid for by tax payers, while most any other child may have had to select ONE of those "niceties" paid for by his/her parent?

Why, because this set of parent had the money to hire an attorney. . .that simple!

In the other hand, a mother of 4, with two of her children severely disabled, was brought to tears when I announced to her that she would receive 10 hours of respite each month, so that she could do something with her two healthy children, while her disabled chidren would be kept safe in their home!

Yes, there are excesses! And it doesn't come from the poor!

Entitled people bring their entitled attitude in EVERYTHING!. . .and their demands are MUCH higher than anyone else!

 

[BigRob]

The main question is. . do I think I was the norm in knowingly selecting a career that didn't pay for the amount of education, but helped disenfranchised people?

I believe that a minimum of 75% of social workers or teachers who remain in the profession for over 3 years do it because of their deep commitment to helping others, rather than to "make money!"

In the office where I worked, we had 18 social workers. 15 had a masters degree in social work, education, or psychology. Two were married to business executives, one was an heiress receiving a sizeable annuity from oil and an annuity from her great grand father's fortune (Mudd family fortune). One was the wife of a fairly successful writer, three were first generation latina who each had seen their parents work in the strawberry fields and had siblings who were disabled. The others were married to contractors, or not single. Two were a lesbian couple. Two others were married to a teacher and another social worker in a different field.

NONE Of these people HAD to settle for the lower pay in social work. . .they did because they found it MET something to them, and to the families they worked with.

And, yes, I have seen waste, and inefficencies, and abuse of the system by those who were being served. . .but not the ones you would think would take advantage of the system!

One example: For a child to qualify for developmental disability services, there were very strict guidelines. . .one of which was an IQ below 70. However, some children with "light" autism have a much higher IQ, and still may qualify IF their light autism creates enough difficulties in their life (and their family's life) that they need extensive help to function or to stay safe.

One of those child was a lovely little girl. . .actually quite bright. She had to go through the qualification process for entitlement 3 times, before she was finally accepted. . .because the family took a private attorney. The father was a surgeon. The mother was a surgical nurse. She was an only child.

As soon as the qualification was over, we received a three page letter with their "demands!"

Not only did they want "respite" (a few hours each week of basically babysitting, so the parents can have some relief from their care giving duty), and transportation to and from school, and a 1:1 aide in school, and Easter Seal Summer camp. . .but also these "services!"

A 1:1 aide to drive the child to a location 45 miles away from her home to attend equestrian therapy, once a week. And cover of the cost of the equestrian therapy.

A 1:1 aide to drive the child to her "therapeutic dance lessons" once a week, and payment for those lessons

A 1:1 aide to drive the child and assist her during swimming lessons twice a week

A 1:1 aide to drive the child to music therapy classes and assist the music teacher. . . fully paid also

two 48 hours of "out of home respite" each month into a "weekend" respite camp.

Now, these demands were obviously excessive. . .why should a child, just because it is disabled, have EVERY "wants" paid for? Why should that child have access to all those "niceties" fully paid for by tax payers, while most any other child may have had to select ONE of those "niceties" paid for by his/her parent?

Why, because this set of parent had the money to hire an attorney. . .that simple!

In the other hand, a mother of 4, with two of her children severely disabled, was brought to tears when I announced to her that she would receive 10 hours of respite each month, so that she could do something with her two healthy children, while her disabled chidren would be kept safe in their home!

Yes, there are excesses! And it doesn't come from the poor!

Entitled people bring their entitled attitude in EVERYTHING!. . .and their demands are MUCH higher than anyone else!

Why couldn't they just be told no?

 

[Openmind]

Why couldn't they just be told no?

They were. . . several times. Then we go in front of a judge for a "fair hearing" and present our case, and they present their case. And . . .we are not trained as attorney. . .but people who do have the money bring their attorney. The odds are not always even.

I did win a fair hearing once. The mother of a very disabled young woman was receiving 20 hours of 1:1 care every day in her home for her daughter. Both mother and father were engineers, the father working out of his home. They wanted 24 hours a day care/7 days a week. . .although the daughter couldn't move out of her bed, couldn't speak, and slept all night without needing the care.
We agreed to provide her with 624 hours of 1:1 care per month. . .she wanted 744 hours of care per month. Then, I realized that, she was actually asking MORE hours of 1:1 care then there was hours in the months. . .at least in the 30 days long and 28/29 days month.

This finally did the trick to show the judge that this woman was really milking the system. He actually brought the hours done to 24 hours of care, but only 6 days a week.

One of the few "successful" fair hearings, where an attorney for the family was present!