>> "while more than 60 percent of Philadelphia's adults read at a sixth grade level or below, creating a miserable mismatch that leaves both employers and the unemployed in need."

These urban unemployed adults need to improve their ability to read and write. By definition, as unemployed, they have all the free time in the world to invest in increasing their basic skills. Show some initiative. Spend your days in a library. Stop acting like they can't help themselves and government is the problem...

by Jason on Feb 12, 2011 12:23 pm  

so how committed are any of you to buying american made things?

by fr on Feb 12, 2011 1:07 pm  

fr: Every chance I get. I even make it a point to make sure the orange juice I'm purchasing is not Brazilian, Costa Rican, or Mexican. I want to support keeping farmland in Florida as farmland, not further sprawl.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Feb 12, 2011 1:12 pm  

@jason

I agree. The only way to become proficient with new, more difficult, material is to expose yourself to it.

by james on Feb 12, 2011 1:39 pm  

I agree with Jason and James, but it will probably take some dynamic person or organization to mobilize these individuals to that end on a large scale. Then it becomes a ripple effect. Maybe not, but that's often how it happens. But in principle, I agree.

by Jazzy on Feb 12, 2011 2:29 pm  

@ jason, james: Have you volunteered with a literacy organization yet?

Also, does anybody have experience with any of the regional literacy organizations? If so, please share.

by Jasper on Feb 12, 2011 3:17 pm  

Years ago I got trained by I think it was the Northern Va Literacy Council. Good program. Then I tutored English in Mt Pleasant.

by Jazzy on Feb 12, 2011 3:44 pm  

Jason: So, they don't read, they aren't improving their reading ability, and we would like them to read.

Your approach: Blame them for not reading, and accuse the person who brings this social problem to light of not doing enough to address it personally.

IMO "blaming the victim" for social problems like this isn't really that bad for its moral bankruptcy or its causal logic. Yes, what you state is true - unemployed people have time to learn to read. The problem that this approach poses in policy discussions, the reason it is a contemptible position, is that it absolves our society from understanding or fixing the problem as a group. You say to stop suggesting that government is the problem, when in reality government is just the way that our civilization agrees to solve problems that emerge, like this one. Attacking the victims of the problem, asserting that things like 'personal responsibility' are the most important factors, is to refuse to try and understand what causes 'urban unemployed adults' to fail at reading, and to refuse to acknowledge that it is possible or beneficial to change that phenomena. In many topics an appeal to personal responsibility is simply a convenient, functionally identical stand-in for bigoted views, but I'll ignore that possibility for the sake of civility.

Even the obligatory "So what are you doing about it, hypocrite" response, which fell to Jasper in this discussion, is childish and inadequate if the goal is to talk about what policies might improve the situation.

Unfortunately, even if every commenter here were to volunteer for adult literacy classes, that does not solve the problem of low reading comprehension in Rust-belt cities. Debating whether we should do that, and who has the bigger credential as a proponent of reading, is a very human response which only detracts from the discussion of such large-scale problems.

In analogy:

Does global warming present a threat to our society that we should immediately figure out how to respond to? Even though the accuracy of points in Al Gore's documentary may be important to answering that question, one question not relevant to that discussion is the size and heating bill of Al Gore's house, or an argument within the discussion panel about which of them has been more environmentally conscious this year. This is one of the ways our society fails to solve its problems: by making the importance of individual accomplishment trump any discussion of what causes the problem or how we might collectively address it.

by Squalish on Feb 12, 2011 4:55 pm  

The DC Public Library has an Adult Literacy Resource Center. I don't have experience as a tutor there, but have tutored in the past in both Dayton, Ohio (via a nonprofit focused solely on adult literacy) and Macon, GA (via a church outreach program focused on adult literacy and ESOL). I'd imagine a number of churches and community groups across the region have similar programs - in my experience, it didn't matter if you were a member of the church or not (I'm not Christian), they were just happy to have volunteers.

Speaking to Squalish's point, this is but one facet of a larger challenge that needs to be dealt with collectively and on many levels. Many folks who are un/underemployed can read and write. I specifically mention bringing community colleges into the picture because of my first-hand experience coordinating Weatherization training in Maryland via a community college network. In short, the outcome is a certified (because in many cases this training is required by DOE or the local utility) "green" workforce.

Oh, and every car I've owned (gasp!) has been "American," though it's worth remembering that many "foreign" automobiles are manufactured in the U.S.

by jaime on Feb 12, 2011 5:22 pm  

I'm actually very committed to buying American, or at least items manufactured in countries without totalitarian dictatorships. We decry the decline in American manufacturing yet in our buying decisions we make price paramount, even if the product is made by essentially slave labor at a factory built by first throwing farmers off the land at gunpoint.

by ksu499 on Feb 12, 2011 5:36 pm  

I volunteer with Reading Partners in DC schools. They require one hour a week and they have the lesson plans already made for you. It is a great program!!

by Sally on Feb 12, 2011 5:59 pm  

@ Squalish: Even the obligatory "So what are you doing about it, hypocrite" response, which fell to Jasper in this discussion, is childish and inadequate if the goal is to talk about what policies might improve the situation.

I don't mind the childish comment, but my point was actually serious. All of us here can do something about illiteracy. We may not be able to solve the whole problem, but we can have an impact. Something which is a lot harder on the issue of climate change, because that is such a non-linear problem. And the same kinda goes for the failing education system in the US. Very hard to change for individuals.

Thanks for the tips on the programs.

by Jasper on Feb 12, 2011 6:03 pm  

To continue my train of thought:
We consume thousands of products every year. To expect each and every one of us to become an expert on the shady history of the manufacturing cycle of each one of those is ludicrous even if we can agree that the goal (human rights) is admirable. To suggest that we all 'Buy American' and end international trade is equally ludicrous for most people, even if they're rarely aware of just how much our products and materials cross borders. The best we can do is implement regulation to prohibit human rights abuses in manufacturing, to cut off trade from the worst sorts of organizations completely, and to design the game that industry plays to minimize the incentives corporations have to bypass those regulations.

Just by typing this post, I'm using labor outputs from dozens of different countries in the oil, mineral, electronics, plastics, industrial machinery, IT, electricity, and shipping industries. I'm contributing to controversies as diverse as Congo's history of coltan mining disputes, Taiwanese sweatshops, Chinese currency manipulation & rural underclass, Utah water quality from copper mining, and mercury poisoning from coal powerplants.

The location of an automotive assembly line may be one visible facet of these sorts of problems, but it's only one of many. Controlling your decisions there, whether or not you feel it is necessary, is not sufficient to address these problems.

by Squalish on Feb 12, 2011 6:13 pm  

don't mind the childish comment, but my point was actually serious. All of us here can do something about illiteracy. We may not be able to solve the whole problem, but we can have an impact.

Jasper: Thank you, it was intended without malice. It's just frustrating to me that all too often, personal contributions and volunteerism end up perpetuating a solvable problem by distracting people from measures that we could collectively take that might actually address the root causes.

Yes, you and I can make a huge difference in a few people's lives, but when we act in an organized manner using durable, effective measures, all of us can make a huge difference in a lot of people's lives. They're not automatically mutually exclusive, but there is only so much time in a day, and only so many activists interested in a social problem at once.

by Squalish on Feb 12, 2011 6:21 pm  

@Squalish: "In many topics an appeal to personal responsibility is simply a convenient, functionally identical stand-in for bigoted views"

You are incorrect. It is a distinction between those who make an effort to better themselves and society and those who do not.

by mch on Feb 12, 2011 6:37 pm  

I would love to support local urbanism through the purchase of products made here. Does anyone have any suggestions or lists of products that are produced locally - let's say in the National Capital Region?
Let's say for the sake of discussion that "produced" means "final assembly."
Other than Federal Government and sundry Local Agriculture, I am aware of:
- government id cards
- custom furniture
- fiberglass windows
- jewelry

Any other durable goods or consumer goods?

Thanks!

by pinkshirt on Feb 12, 2011 7:27 pm  

The advertisement strikes a sour note in trumpeting the importance of "luxury". If they had touted Detroit's commitment to serving the public, or creating value, I'd be a lot more impressed.

by David desJardins on Feb 13, 2011 4:46 am  

Jasper's initial response rubbed me the wrong way. The question I have is why are 60% of Philadelphia's adults reading at or below the 6th grade level? I doubt if it's because they are stupid so it must be something else, and that something else must be identified and corrected in their minds before most of them will feel it's worth the effort to improve their reading skills.

Let's say those with poor reading skills DO make the effort now and improve their reading skills, and correct other educational deficiencies, what then? Will jobs suddenly be available for them. At this time of high urban unemployment? Probably not. Remember, the phrase "...more than 60 percent of Philadelphia's adults read at a sixth grade level or below, ..." was preface with "the number of jobs requiring post-secondary education has grown,..." That's the real problem here. There aren't many good jobs for average folks with average intelligence and average skills anymore.

by Trakker on Feb 13, 2011 12:12 pm  

While the civic spirit of this commercial tugged at my heartstrings at first, I quickly turned against it.

Nobody doubts that American workers living in Detroit or anywhere else can build a fantastic car, if Chrysler's management would only give them a fantastic car to build.

To dismiss criticisms of the U.S. automotive sector as a slight against all automotive workers in Detroit is irresponsible to those very workers.

If Chrysler's management, most of whom live in exclusive suburbs way outside Detroit and way beyond 8 Mile, really cared about Detroit and its workers, they would give their workers a great car to build that people want to buy.

by Ken Archer on Feb 13, 2011 1:25 pm  

@KenArcher; largely correct. GM/Ford/Detroit management is mostly responsible. But a large chunk of the American population hates the UAW and its workers, and think of them as drug-addled lazy welfare bums. In reality the UAW is a long way from 1970s -- as is most of the country.*

@DaviddesJardins; I saw the 200 at the DC auto show. Decent car, much improved. "luxury" in that context mean 24K for leather, which is very competitive on pricing and not very high end. Unfortunately, both Ford and GM have also improved a great deal, and the 200 was not as good as their offerings.

by charlie on Feb 13, 2011 3:02 pm  

@charlie, I was not commenting on whether the 200 is or is not luxurious, which I have no idea, but only on the idea that Chrysler feels it is more important to convey a corporate image of luxury, rather than a corporate image of efficiency or functionality or affordability, values which in my opinion should be important American values.

It's mostly about my instinctive aversion to the word, which may not be typical among Americans.

by David desJardins on Feb 13, 2011 3:07 pm  

@David desJardins; what you mean like Henry Ford? Or Alfred Sloan?

I actually think the smart part of the ad was Chrysler was suggesting that luxury = that (efficiency/functionality/Arensal of Democracy) aspect of Detroit. Very intelligent tie-in. Something that Detroit lost in the 1960s, and pretty much gave up on after EPA and CAFE requirements. And tied into the tenor of today's times as well.

by charlie on Feb 13, 2011 4:19 pm  

@charlie: what you mean like Henry Ford? Or Alfred Sloan?

Sure, if you want symbols of how Detroit built an enormously successful manufacturing enterprise, they wouldn't be bad symbols. But probably not for Chrysler.

I actually think the smart part of the ad was Chrysler was suggesting that luxury = that (efficiency/functionality/Arensal of Democracy) aspect of Detroit.

I don't get this. That's not what the word "luxury" means. Luxury is essentially the opposite of efficiency or functionality.

by David desJardins on Feb 13, 2011 4:29 pm  

@David desJ Luxury is essentially the opposite of efficiency or functionality.

I don't that is necessarily so. Would you agree that being driven around in a city bus by yourself at 2 am is anything but luxurious ... AND is inefficient (cost of the bus driver, the deisel, and everything else) ... While driving a much less consuming (and efficient) BMW roadster on that same road at 2 am is not only more efficient BUT luxurious?

i.e., There's no correlation between the two.

from M-W.com

Definition of LUXURY
1archaic : lechery, lust
2: a condition of abundance or great ease and comfort : sumptuous environment (lived in luxury)
3a : something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary (one of life's luxuries) b : an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease (had the luxury of rejecting a handful of job offers — Terri Minsky>)
— luxury adjective d

by Lance on Feb 13, 2011 5:42 pm  

Obviously something is not a luxury just because it is inefficient. Things can be stupidly inefficient in a way that also is not luxurious. But there is definitely a correlation, because inefficiency (as illustrated by the words "not absolutely necessary" or "an indulgence" in the quoted definition) is an element of luxury.

by David desJardins on Feb 13, 2011 5:51 pm  

I thought the commercial was pretty amazing, personally.

Now if only Chrysler made a car I'd actually *like* (or at the very least, one that's practical for the city), I'll consider it.

Too bad the new Fiat 500 (technically a "Chrysler") will be built in Mexico.

by Josh C. on Feb 14, 2011 9:49 am  

Very interesting that nobody's seemed to notice this car isn't actually made in the City of Detroit.

by Christian on Feb 14, 2011 6:00 pm  

Christian,

"Detroit" is often used as a metonym, the same way that the Pentagon represents the Department of Defense, or that the White House represents the President's administration.

The 200 is assembled in Sterling Heights, MI - just outside of Detroit.

Likewise, as "Detroit" is often used as a metonym for the US Auto Industry, you're surely aware that only GM is actually based in the City of Detroit. Ford is based in Dearborn, and Chrysler is based in Auburn Hills. They're all still "Detroit" as far as a TV ad is concerned.

That said, almost all of that imagery in the commercial is from the City of Detroit, proper. Talk to people in Southeast Michigan, and I doubt any of them are that concerned about what you bring up.

by Alex B. on Feb 14, 2011 6:42 pm