Coats cause inequality...

[Farm Boy]

The Tariffs on clothing is about 12% in the EU and VAT is charged at 20% in the UK on the product and tariff

So the tariff on clothes from Canada is about 15%, counting the tariff and the tax on the tariff?

I'm idly curious, anyone have stats to compare this with Trumps OMG TRADE IS DED bombs that seem to be fueling all the snickering from people not eating the market damage? Not to imply that you are snickering Silurian.

Mostly wondering if that's new, old, or if EU tariffs in that neighborhood are standard operating procedure. Don't honestly know what US countertariffs generally ran, pre-Trump either. Full disclosure, I've generally grown to expect European trade barriers to take the form not of a direct tariff, but in regulation responding to a lie about safety or somesuch*, so this is more interesting than usual.

*Which I'm open to being a dated opinion, if new information or market forces have taken hold. It's just my 90/aughts bias.

 

[Patine]

The Tariffs on clothing is about 12% in the EU and VAT is charged at 20% in the UK on the product and tariff

So the tariff on clothes from Canada is about 15%, counting the tariff and the tax on the tariff?

I'm idly curious, anyone have stats to compare this with Trumps OMG TRADE IS DED bombs that seem to be fueling all the snickering from people not eating the market damage? Not to imply that you are snickering Silurian.

Mostly wondering if that's new, old, or if EU tariffs in that neighborhood are standard operating procedure. Don't honestly know what US countertariffs generally ran, pre-Trump either. Full disclosure, I've generally grown to expect European trade barriers to take the form not of a direct tariff, but in regulation responding to a lie about safety or somesuch*, so this is more interesting than usual.

*Which I'm open to being a dated opinion, if new information or market forces have taken hold. It's just my 90/aughts bias.

I just happened to be out and about downtown since my last post, and saw a dishevelled, older man picking bottles from the garbage into a beaten-up bag (a sure-fire scream-out of poverty). And guess what? He was wearing a Canada Goose jacket. And it didn't have the wear and tear thrift store jackets often have. I suppose it's possible he mugged a drunk frat boy at night and stole it from him (such thing's are POSSIBLE in this dangerous world), but, all in all, it doesn't seem economically very exclusive given the crowds wearing it here.

 

[Silurian]

US tariffs on clothing appear to be similar to the EU.

From Pew Research

Broadly speaking, the largest categories of U.S. imports tend to carry relatively low tariff rates, while the highest rates usually are found in relatively small categories. Clothing is the main exception: The two main classifications of “apparel and clothing accessories” together accounted for $80.6 billion in imports last year (3.5% of the total); nearly $64 billion of those imports, or 79%, were “dutiable” – that is, subject to duty. The average tariffs on the dutiable portions were 18.7% for knitted or crocheted clothing, and 15.8% for non-knitted or crocheted items – the two highest average rates out of 98 broad import categories. Footwear was close behind: Nearly all of the $25.5 billion in imported footwear is subject to duty, at an average rate of 11.9%.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ghest-duties-tend-to-be-on-imported-clothing/

 

[Arakhor]

A) If the school cared, it would not do half-baked changes that don't address the root problem in any capacity.

Well, if you say so, but I don't see how you're suddenly an expert in the school's anti-bullying practices, just because you disapprove of their anti-poverty measures.

 

[Farm Boy]

US tariffs on clothing appear to be similar to the EU.

That's interesting. Thank you! I'll have to broaden my scope on tariffs both in breadth and over time one of these days in light of Tim's general assessment of the people in LA and what voters are "worth" chasing and which ones should be targeted for pillaging.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just read the whole thing and was agreeing with it until they got to the part where they provide hygiene products. Really?

What is your objection? Are girls supposed to just stay home during those days, if they/their family can't afford hygiene products?

Some girls suffer a lot of pain and other problems during that time, and for smug men to say they don't even deserve to have the basic necessities so they can try to do normal things like attend school is just plain offensive.

 

[rah]

A lot of people suffer a lot of pain growing up. I know teachers that spend their own money to provide supplies and such for their needy students while being paid crappy wages. Putting the burden on them and the school districts to solve all these issues just seems silly to me. There has to be a better solution. I find the rest of your unjustified assumptions rude and uncalled for.

 

[Arakhor]

It is silly, but that's the reality of Tory austerity for you.

 

[rah]

The school breakfast and lunch programs for needy children is another one but I'm willing to concede that one since the kids are already at school so it probably is an appropriate place to help resolve the problem. And nutrition is important in the learning process. But government assistance programs should be assisting on this already. School districts are already overwhelmed.

 

[Patine]

It is silly, but that's the reality of Tory austerity for you.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, if you say so, but I don't see how you're suddenly an expert in the school's anti-bullying practices, just because you disapprove of their anti-poverty measures.

That's a disingenuous representation of the conversation and article. Banning coats is not an "anti-poverty" measure, same with pencil cases and whatnot. Calling it that is dishonest.

It would be different if the article were about a school changing its dress code to allow less expensive uniforms. *That* would be anti-poverty. Instead, it is explicitly removing an option to wear some types of coats. The only "anti" there is anti-logic.

The whole "expert on anti-bullying" part is nonsense too. I did not claim that or imply it. What doesn't take an expert is to notice that the stated rationale is devoid of coherent reasoning. Incoherent reasoning for an action necessarily suggests ineptitude at accomplishing a supposed goal.

Some girls suffer a lot of pain and other problems during that time, and for smug men to say they don't even deserve to have the basic necessities so they can try to do normal things like attend school is just plain offensive.

You get some interesting results if you use this rationale and hold self-consistent standards. For example you're stuck arguing that schools should provide shoes, food, and underwear. After all, everyone "deserves the basic necessities".

Food has a legitimate case because it's significantly more time-sensitive.

 

[Farm Boy]

People should have shoes, food, and underwear. Schools are an excellent vehicle for providing up to two square meals per day five days per week, at least around here*. Funding it is complicated though, so it then becomes a matter of optimizing the vehicles of delivery. Education is tasked with exposing youth to a variety of broadening experiences. If flattened variety of clothing can refocus learning differently than it occurs in non-school hours, that's a broadening input. If it's a positive input, it seems a valid task for a school to be tasked with. If allowing non-exorbitantly expensive cultural and religious markers along with the uniform allows mixing of experiences and relationships also not as common outside the classroom, that is also a laudable goal. It's school.

The knife policy thing is a bag of hammers. But I'm not getting why it's particularly on point here.

*Though one is more common. However, in schools that have a lot of students that are unlikely to have been fed in the morning, it is more common to start providing a morning meal as well. They don't learn anything when they're hungry.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

People should have shoes, food, and underwear.

Agreed, but I do not agree that schools should provide all 3 to students. One of them, yes, unless a better/more efficient means of distribution that still lets kids eat at school crops up.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ideally, they don't have to provide any of it. I'm going to be rural American here, so anyone please feel free to point out where it differs and doesn't make sense - The school district is the most expensive local governmental function we run. Roads/police/fire/library are up there, but school is expensive. Teachers, underpaid or not, are expensive in the numbers required to do a decent job. The buildings aren't cheap, the buses aren't cheap, the administration isn't cheap. The superintendents and principles are quite literally more important than the mayors in the towns the school district is comprised of, by my reckoning. They're actually paid positions, for one. Though a school might not be the best vehicle for delivery of a lot of services, it literally has custody of the kids for a goodly portion of the week. If there is a deficiency that is causing a student to be less capable of learning or even attending school, that seems a reasonable deficiency for the school to consider addressing. I mean seriously, we just knocked down the last grand art deco building we had, at huge municipal expense, and replaced it with a massive utilitarian one-story hallway in order to comply with the ADA for students we have in small numbers because it was deemed insufficient to move the entire curriculum for their grade to floor one when we had such a student in attendance, as we'd been doing for a century. If a couple dozen sanitary napkins a month increase attendance couple dozen school days a month? Damn, that is return on investment. The school shouldn't have to do it, but if nobody else is, by God, go get the damn pads!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The school breakfast and lunch programs for needy children is another one but I'm willing to concede that one since the kids are already at school so it probably is an appropriate place to help resolve the problem. And nutrition is important in the learning process. But government assistance programs should be assisting on this already. School districts are already overwhelmed.

It's a state school so it's funded by the government anyway, so it is essentially a government assistance program. Just one that this particular school has chosen to provide out of its budget rather than something mandated or organised centrally.

 

[Patine]

The knife policy thing is a bag of hammers. But I'm not getting why it's particularly on point here.

In fact, a good, solid, wieldy hammer in your knapsack would be an effective way to circumvent the knife ban.

 

[CKS]

For example you're stuck arguing that schools should provide shoes, food, and underwear. After all, everyone "deserves the basic necessities".

Schools here do provide shoes, food, and underwear to students who need them. Also shirts, pants, coats, hats, and gloves; feminine hygiene products; pencils; paper; books; and many other things that some students' families cannot provide, whether due to poverty or addiction. Some are paid for by the government, some by the school, some by the teachers, and some by other parents or interested community members, but they are given out through the school. Since the schools are where the kids are, it seems appropriate that schools are where the assistance is given.

 

[Patine]

Schools here do provide shoes, food, and underwear to students who need them. Also shirts, pants, coats, hats, and gloves; feminine hygiene products; pencils; paper; books; and many other things that some students' families cannot provide, whether due to poverty or addiction. Some are paid for by the government, some by the school, some by the teachers, and some by other parents or interested community members, but they are given out through the school. Since the schools are where the kids are, it seems appropriate that schools are where the assistance is given.

Here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, the Edmonton Public School Board and the Edmonton Catholic School Board divide individual school districts between "poverty tendency neighbourhood districts" and "sustained income neighbourhood districts." The former get those kind of services provided gratis, but the latter (including the schools I personally attended) expect much more to be on the shoulders and onus of the parents.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

A lot of people suffer a lot of pain growing up. I know teachers that spend their own money to provide supplies and such for their needy students while being paid crappy wages. Putting the burden on them and the school districts to solve all these issues just seems silly to me. There has to be a better solution. I find the rest of your unjustified assumptions rude and uncalled for.

Which of my assumptions are unjustified? From the disdainful tone of your post it seems more than justified to conclude that you have no idea at all what it's like for teenage girls who have difficulties in this aspect of their lives... and what's more, you give zero evidence of even caring.

You say there has to be a better solution. Let's see yours, then.

The school breakfast and lunch programs for needy children is another one but I'm willing to concede that one since the kids are already at school so it probably is an appropriate place to help resolve the problem. And nutrition is important in the learning process. But government assistance programs should be assisting on this already. School districts are already overwhelmed.

Why should kids be helped with food "because they're already at school" but girls should not be helped with sanitary hygiene issues? They're also "already at school", or at least some are. The rest would be "already at school" if they could get there in the first place.

You get some interesting results if you use this rationale and hold self-consistent standards. For example you're stuck arguing that schools should provide shoes, food, and underwear. After all, everyone "deserves the basic necessities".

Kindly do not put words on my keyboard. I never said schools should provide shoes, food, or underwear. If some do, or if teachers provide them, that's a good thing that contributes to the recipients being able to come to school and learn.

Sanitary hygiene products are basic necessities. If you don't believe me, ask any female over the age of about 10-12. Or possibly younger.

Food has a legitimate case because it's significantly more time-sensitive.

People can survive half a day without food, although it's not pleasant when you're in school and have problems paying attention because you're hungry (been there, done that). But being able to change one's sanitary product is not something that can wait a whole school day, at least not with most girls. It's not sanitary, and it's not healthy.

Though a school might not be the best vehicle for delivery of a lot of services, it literally has custody of the kids for a goodly portion of the week. If there is a deficiency that is causing a student to be less capable of learning or even attending school, that seems a reasonable deficiency for the school to consider addressing. I mean seriously, we just knocked down the last grand art deco building we had, at huge municipal expense, and replaced it with a massive utilitarian one-story hallway in order to comply with the ADA for students we have in small numbers because it was deemed insufficient to move the entire curriculum for their grade to floor one when we had such a student in attendance, as we'd been doing for a century. If a couple dozen sanitary napkins a month increase attendance couple dozen school days a month? Damn, that is return on investment. The school shouldn't have to do it, but if nobody else is, by God, go get the damn pads!

Well stated.

 

[Yeekim]

The most expensive article of clothing I own is a $16 pair of pants. Hasn't hurt me.

You get your stuff for free from somewhere?