Re: HMong Kids Lack Learning Help!

"Tshua" <pujtoogmuamnkaujfa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133964887.079966.312810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Look at the number American white collar workers holding white collar
> jobs in India and China. U.S. white collar workers are left without
> jobs because of low paying jobs abroad with the same skills and
> education. Chinese and Indians do not need to attend wasteful, sky

TECHNICAL SKILLS do not necessarily constitute what an
"education" is, especially what a broad, well rounded education.
These little subsidiaries, subcontracts, "contract out" kinds of
work that the hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian
technically skilled workers are mindlessly churing out for the
USA and affluent Western Europe do NOT make those Chinese
and technically skilled workers any more roundly educated
than plantation laborers.


> rocketing tuition costs U.S. Universities to do quality work. U.S.
> universities are for Whites and limited for "Ameriasians." But
> who needs it, except dumb ass Ameriasians like ourselves who
> don't have a choice.
>
> The U.S. economy is in the stage where it takes 3-5 people to work to
> put one retiree on social security. What you "educrats" are saying is
> morally reprehensive. The U.S. has one tenth of China or India's
> population. Not every American child succeeds and goes on to college
> except maybe Whites. The U.S. has already lost its manufacturing

The USA and Western Europe are NOT WORKING that hard, or that
long, or that productively. That's the Gospel TRUTH, what these
silly economists are saying. I'll tell you why in a few seconds why it
is NOT necessary; but first let me get in the social security/retirement
pyramid scheme,,, because, in fact, those TWO ISSUES rae related:

It is NOT as you and other silly people, including economists are
saying: it is NOT that there are LESS AND LESS American workers
are supporting American retirees. That's just nonsense for people
who don't know ***; and apparently a lot of economists from places
like Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, etc. don't know ***'s worth. OR
THEY LIE.

Now, let me tell you straight: The WEALTH that Americans and
affluent Western Europeans live by, thrive on, bathe in, throw around,
etc., etc. ---- THOSE WEALTH are created by the WORKERS you
mentioned gleefully above, NOT us!

We are simply the managers, supervisors, designers of machines (or
actually mostly blue prints), of ideas, etc. THOSE POOR workers
who have NEEDED and mono-dimensional skills, though deeply
technical, yes,,,, THOSE are the ones SUPPORTING American and
Western European retirees on their shoulders.

This, Her Lao realizes, is a bit beyond most folks, including some of
the "brightest minds",,, but IT IS GOSPEL TRUTH!

> industry, and the service industry is now on the brink. We will live
> but the luxury that Her Lao and Tshua retires - that we will have nice
> pension plus our social social security is at risk but thanks to our
> "educrats" and "bureaucrats" who blame the number of children as a
> result of poor education despite all of the social services we have

We do NOT have "poor edcuation." We have FAMILIES giving birth
to too many children, WITHIN A CERTAIN GROUPS in America, like
the Hmong (Blacks, non-White Hispanics, Native Americans, etc.
et al),,, and THOSE FOLKS are NOT able to educate their many
children as ADEQUATELY as other Amerisans who are giving birth
to no more than one to two kids per set of parents.

I work with some ofthe MOST AFFLUENT families in America (MN
is one of the most "White" states in the union, and there are a certain
suburbs whose annual incomes, on average, are in the hundred
thousand plus range. But even these folks can not afford to send
more than 2 kids to a (K12) school that cost around $20,000 a piece,
plus a thousand on a personal lap top; 2 grands on busing needs;
and one or two more ---- per year --- on other fees.

NATURALLY, then, these already very affluent families do NOT,
on average, have more than 2 kids per set of parents.

It don't take great, fancy statistical data ---- but simple knowledge
---
to know that THESE VERY AFFLUENT folks are so because
they value education ,,,, for themselves as parents and for their
1-2 children MORE than having a house full of children. This is
NOT a big mystery. Whether at the personal, familial, tribal
community, or state/society levels ------ THOSE who make educated
and conscious decisions to CUT DOWN on the number of children
they give birth to, PER FAMILY, move to the front in human achievemtns;
those who don't stay in the back.

The COORELATION is there, self-testaments.

Confidence levels and all these other fancies formula your little
silly recent college graduate body threw out --- for Her Lao to solve,
to show, she said! [when the DATA we have are no more than
Her Lao's name; the number of his siblings; Paris Hilton, and
Marie Presley!; tell her she's a complete idiot to ask someone to
generate confifence level nonsense from a few names like that.

Now, if she's either more stupid than I thought, or too lazy, and
want Her Lao to crank out statistics --- including confidence
levels having to do with COORELATIONS between the number
of child per family, ON AVERAGE, in a society AND THE SOCIETY
OVER-ALL EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT vis-a-vis others,,,
THEN, yes, Her Lao shall gladly do it.

But my pay fee is $50 an hour. After all, it'd be like tutorial. If I
charge these kids $50 an hour, I must also charge idiots like
her the same amount, if she needs help on statistical analysis,
which she could likely punch into a calculator like some
monkey but unlike knows what the heck she'ss doing, so she's
not able to really make sense of it,,, even when the ANSWER on
coorelations concerning EDUCATION and low number of children
per family HAS ALREADY BEEN estbalished, ALL other factors
fairly considrered,,,,,,,

> available - free federal grants for low income and reduced cost of
> meals in public schools.
>


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.