Well I didn't get fired until I was 17, and I was going in the Navy anyways. The chicken war was one of those things that just seemed like a fun idea, as they had a bad habit of reusing food from banquets and I was not impressed with that. Although it was a bad thing to do.. Bigger issue is the fact a lot of states (Oregon included) have created laws limiting jobs to kids, you cannot work in Oregon until you are 16, and if you want to work on a farm, you have to get special licenses (for a fee of course) and a special "farm school". Like a kid growing up on a farm won't know how to work a tractor? We have about 50% farms in and around the Willamette Valley. Sometimes I end up behind some huge tractors only to see some kid 13 or 14 years old driving it. And they have gotten pretty big. I steer clear of them, since they usually do ok, but have some slight navigation issues. The liberal inclination to regulate any action is a kedge anchor on kids as much as the schools.

Yes. I see all that happening where I am too.

I think people at age 15 or so start having the itch to leave their family and start their own lives, doing their own work, and being responsible for their own actions. I think we should start weening them free of parental restrictions when that itch starts. Maybe they'll fall on their faces a few times and need some minimal parental bailout, but it shouldn't be much bailout IMHO. Extending childhood into the late teens is tempting but is of no benefit to the parents nor the young adults.

I like the notion of how you started one job at age 13, got fired, and realized you didn't want to do that job. You had plenty of time left in life to change paths. And this path change was your own doing, not some parental restriction, which helps you put your heart into it. The late teens seems like a great time to go out, try some crazy ideas, fall on your face, maybe find one crazy idea that actually works, and learn to live your life as you own person with all the rights and responsibilities of a human being.

Another thing, I saw that Air Products (who make controls for gases and manufacturing equip) had to start an apprentice training school of their own to get kids educated (they enlisted several area high schools) to a level they could hire them. That kind of work is very detailed and messing it up can get people killed, so they need people who actually can do things right. That was in Pennsylvania I think a couple years ago.

I believe education up through end of HS should be general, in that it is prepatory for either more education (college) or transition to a specific skill (trade school or apprenticeship). I know that most kids have no idea what they want to do (most would vote for "nothing" if a choice) and go to college just because they can get "free" money. Then when the bill comes due, they either do not pay it or bitch incessantly. I just do not see a lot of kids having a goal at age 18 beyond "having fun", because they are finally free from "restrictions. That is why there is a lot of pain and angst in the 18-21 years when the reality hits of "I have to get a job?". I started work when I was 13, in a bakery, and knew I did not want to be a baker. I switched around and did cashier in a couple stores, worked in WT Grants (did lots of varied stuff for the manager there), and washed dishes in a very high end restaurant in NJ (The Manor Inn, until we got fired for having a chicken war with the Chinese dishwashers downstairs (banquet chicken halves at 20 paces or less). But knew that I needed some skill at something someone would pay me to do, so I enlisted and went into Advanced Electronics (after I dumped a nuke billet due to the delay getting into the school). I agree with you goal idea, I just do not see it happening with a lot of kids. I also believe there should be apprentice/skill training for career paths when kids have decided that is what they want to do. But none of this is available in any school I know of in the US today (although I am sure there is one or 2 exceptions). So the college thing becomes the default choice, with student loans, and now Bernie just wants to add 4 more years of "nothing" for free. I do not see any grand improvement with a college degree over a H>S> one, in most people. Lazy is lazy, dumb is dumb, and both can get through today's colleges. I did a BS in IT Technology and only picked up a few new things, and graduated with a 3.88 GPA Magnum Cum Laude. Just because if I wanted to advance to Engineer in my company, they required a degree. The stuff I have learned doing my job and working is much vaster and useful to myself and my company than anything I learned in college. I also agree with your statement on people holding others back, it should not happen, and the current system is almost 180 out on that. Most of the time it is not a material or class issue, it is individual lack of discipline and effort.The military got locked into the "you either have a college degree or are dumb" idea and most business does too, which is why it is now a college degree is almost the same as what used to pass for a HS diploma 20-30 years ago.

Are you saying it's good that it be general so that even people who don't go to college will have tools to understand the world and skills to go from enlisted to and officer's rank if they have the ability (not some arbitrary requirement of a college degree)? I agree with the idea of a path to advance to an officer. I like the idea of everyone learning basic skills but if people aren't into learning something, they shouldn't be in a class holding back people who are. That's why I'm saying everyone should have a goal.

Well, I must stick to my claim on CC just because I have not been able to find anything that remotely defines it goals in a factual, step by step manner. It seems conceived around some nebulous idea of "this is what is needed". I think High School was intended after the 40's to be a "prep" school for college, hence it's general nature, and to prepare you to either go to college, or go into a trade able to learn new concepts. If a kid has a basic set of tools regarding understanding new things, then they can learn any skill at all, which is one reason I am a proponent of making military officers from enlisted. They have proven they can learn (mostly) so they have the basic material to move on, if they have the motivation. I have met more college grads with less "knowledge" or even common sense, than what my sailors had 20 years ago.

"Women should stay home with their babies"
First, you wouldn't want to be an infant or toddler spending full-time with my wife. And even if she had made her associate a partner and slowly sold her firm before having kids, what would she do as the babies grow up? I guess she could build it back up again. That's a lot to ask of someone, too much. Someone spends years getting a masters in public administration, working for DoJ, going law school, working at a firm in DC, moves briefly to NYC to work with one of their clients, moves back to the Midwest, starts a firm, goes through the ups and downs of making a business work, amazingly it starts working employing people and has thousands of satisfied customers who give her hugs, and then of a sudden she's supposed to become a baby expert. That doesn't make logical sense. Sanders should focus on his own babies and grandbabies.

"You and your wife decided that your careers and the things you could buy was higher priority"
This is simply incorrect. We were fortunate enough already to have more than enough wealth to buy the things we wanted.
I took classes at the hospital where I learned to change my first diaper. We coordinated our businesses so we could use only 20 hours of nanny per week, even though we would have made way more money hiring a FT nanny and PT house manager and focusing on our businesses. Because of this decision, I changed countless diapers, became very good at swaddling, feeding, burping, etc, and spent countless nights with babies when my wife was going to be at court, with a string of clients, or handling an employee issue. She did the same for me.

I was eager to do it when needed. But I am not a full-time infant care guy. I'm much more a circuit guy. It seems like your comment says if you're not an infant care guy, you must be giving higher priority to material goods than teaching your kids values. I think people are naturally geared toward different things. The world needs, electronics, contracts, and people who just love playing with babies and interacting with them all day long. My wife tried teaching the 3-4 y/o Sunday school at our UU society (like "church" for atheists). They had a lesson "I have two feet." My wife said it took all her restraint not to blurt out, "Well no shit Sherlock!" LOL I do not want her working full-time with toddlers.

Sanders' comment caught my attention b/c my wife and I struggled with this so much. We had our share of trouble with nannies. We so wished we had some grandmotherly figures or aunt in our family who just loved babies but also loved our kids. Before we had kids a colleague says she wanted a junior wife to provide loving care for the babies, decorate, and so on. We said to ourselves "alrighty then. This is too kinky or too Muslim or Mormon for us." A few years later we understand and wished we had such a person, not in the kinky way but in the way of having someone excited in things like "the theme of the nursery". I recall people asking us repeatedly and neither one of us giving a tinker's damn about it.

I don't know if we should have hired more nanny, less nanny, or exactly how we should have handled it. I am certain, at least for my kids, they would not have benefited as infants or toddlers by having an engineer or lawyer spending every waking hour with them. I am certain we had to work it out for ourselves. Even friends telling me what they did didn't help; so I sure as heck don't want Sanders' advice.

hurc81, I see that same issue in my small town. Lots of parent both working, and hating it, as it always has bad results for the kids, and they get caught between one demand or another. Your comments is exactly what I hear from the younger people I talk to.

Excellent point khalling, just the realities of business. But reality is not something I saw many in touch with in their "debate". Jim Webb seemed the most grounded, and he even came apart under pressure. It was the grand giveaway program. No logic or common sense, just a bunch of edicts and promises.

Well, having seen this from both sides (employment and results), I am of the opinion that most parent both work simply because the burden of government (Fed, State, Local) is such that 2 peoples income is needed to offset what used to be met by 1. I see lots of families in my little town who both work, because they have too, just to have a less than stellar house, (most of them rent) and survive on what is left over after the govt gets done raping them. I lose 42% of my gross income to taxes (SS, Medicare, Health care, Income, State Income), then I have to cough up 1750 a year to the county (for all kinds of "stuff", mainly to pay for their retirement plan). I make a good income (about 135K/year) and I see 75K in real money. My wife has horses, which I pay for from my income, because that is what she wants to to. So I don't have retirement income beyond 17K/yr from the Navy. I have a small amount in a company plan (about 150K) which will be wiped out in the next market crash, as I am not allowed to move it (thanks IRS). So I don't count on it. Luckily my employer will keep me on until I drop over, as they do not have a mandatory retirement age.
All that said, I would hate to try to raise kids in this utopia society. The schools tell kids all about their rights, and no responsibilities, and most are "latchkey" kids that get into all kinds of trouble between 3-6 when mom or dad may get home. Bernie is a loon to think he can dictate this thing, and not force more parents to have 2,3 or 4 jobs just to pay all their giveaways. I have seen where people go out on maternity leave, bonding leave, etc and the remaining members must make up for their absence, meanwhile the company is forced to pay the absent employee, for no production. You cannot dictate a societies rules, and then manipulate them for your own benefit, and then force the rest to pay and work for it. Europe is a shambles for a reason. Go look at their tax rates, and huge ongoing debt load from their "benefits for all".
You cannot load people up with huge debt burdens (taxes), then complain when they go out to get jobs to pay all that crap, then demand that a select group get free passes for months, and then expect employers to pay for that, on top of all the other expenses. Add that to the markets insatiable demands for continued profit growth and you end up laying off all the people you are supposed to be helping.The the companies go out of business. Are we going to take a page from AS and outlaw business's going broke? It is a vicious spiral once you start the "special benefit" programs with government control. Bernie is a loon. A communist loon at that. Bah...

I agree that having your parents with them makes a big difference compared to someone who had no connection.

imo, the culture of handing your children over to people with no vested interest in the well being of the children is a big mistake.
Children do not need kindergarden. They need parents who care enough to spend time with them and teach them.
Yes, I think that a parent should be at home with the children for the first 5 years.
I do not think that there should be any law forcing businesses to provide any maternity leave.
It should be left up to the business owners and the individuals. Government has no part whatsoever in this.
Bernie, however, is a statist looter.

what is your opinion on that? I tend to agree-I don't know why anyone would need 6 weeks before due date (going off the German model). Fact is, even though Germany offers this to all female employees through mandatory conscription of their employers, Germany still has one of the (maybe the lowest) birth rates in the world. makes you wonder if women contemplating pregnancy are worried about moving up the corporate ladder. I know that if I was an employer, the chances the female employee would get pregnant on the job would be factored into her overall salary and benefit plan-which would mean the salary offered to her would be less than a similarly skilled male.