[benji25]

Originally Posted by Umami

And what happens to the children in districts with fewer resources/failing districts? Do we just abandon them as casualties of the "free market"?

What makes you think a teacher can leave a failing district without forfeiting their pension?

What makes you think a superintendent would pay more attention to an individual teacher instead of a group of teachers?

1. Put more tax dollars there. I am not familiar enough with the education system to know how each state/district funds it but if it needs to be a statewide tax that supports all public schools equally then maybe that is an option. However that is a different discussion as there are way to many issues regarding how to fund education.

2. That is a cost they will have to weigh themselves. Are their working conditions so bad they would forfeit it?

3. It may not be the superintendent directly which is why I said in the first example principal or whomever. Each next level of "management" should be concerned about the people below them so somewhere in the hierarchy someone is examining teachers on an individual basis just as a manager in any company is responsible for his subordinates.

[barrel roll]

If you have no one else to do the job, you're at a bit of a disadvantage if your job do-er decides to walk.

Why should they not forfeit their employment benefits when voluntarily leaving employment?

Abandon children? We're not their parents. Parents are responsible for the children's upbringing, not the state. Unless you enjoy the Nanny State in all it's glory, and like how it has replaced mothers since mothers have HAD to join the work force in large numbers in order to survive.


answered in reverse order, Im going for a run.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

We were talking about american economic success and how it relates to our democratic governance. Why wouldn't we want to narrow down to that specifically? I agree with the broader principle. I was just specifying to clarify a point.

To be very clear
Gonzo: American economic success is driven by government
tsballer: American economic succes is driven by the American people and their values.
Your point: Government is a reflection of people and their values.
My specification: American democracy is a reflection of american people and their values therefore American economic success is driven by government.

Where did I go wrong?

You didn't. I was responding to an email when I had reply up to you. I'm sorry. But I did want to point out that it isn't just democracies which represent people.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by benji25

So the millions of hard working Americans hard working nature and our pursuit of "the American Dream" did not play a significant role in where this country is today?

Workers in the poorest countries work as hard or harder than US workers. It's what US workers get paid that makes America a success. The concept of the American Dream rose in the post-Depression landscape following on major government intervention and a slew of laws and regulations that recognized the importance of the worker.
The power and riches of America rose with the size and scope of government.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Workers in the poorest countries work as hard or harder than US workers. It's what US workers get paid that makes America a success. The concept of the American Dream rose in the post-Depression landscape following on major government intervention and a slew of laws and regulations that recognized the importance of the worker.
The power and riches of America rose with the size and scope of government.

And the government pays the workers or....?

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

If you have no one else to do the job, you're at a bit of a disadvantage if your job do-er decides to walk.

This gets at a bigger point about the asymmetry in power between employees and employers, as a point for the existence of unions. Because a manager oversees many employees, the impact of a single employee deciding to walk is not as large on the employer as it is on the employee, and getting a group of employees to leave in protest of specific complaints is impossible without some sort of organization.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Why should they not forfeit their employment benefits when voluntarily leaving employment?

Because pensions are used as compensation for lower salaries. You do bring up an interesting point though. In my mind the elimination of pensions and subsequent competition could be very good for teachers, a legitimate salary and a 401k might even lure me into the field. Expensive for taxpayers, though.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Abandon children? We're not their parents. Parents are responsible for the children's upbringing, not the state. Unless you enjoy the Nanny State in all it's glory, and like how it has replaced mothers since mothers have HAD to join the work force in large numbers in order to survive.

That's a red herring argument and you know it. Districts with fewer resources are in areas with fewer resources. District resources are directly linked to people's wages, so yes, it would indicate that their mother HAD to join the work force. Low income wages have been stagnant for decades, it has nothing to do with favor for the nanny state.

Solidarity is apparently not in your vocabulary.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by benji25

And the government pays the workers or....?

The government has heavy influence on the pay of all workers via laws, spending, and what it pays its own workers. The post-Depression paradigm shift away from the robber baron era is a major reason for the US's success today. The return to it is a major problem we face today, and a big part of the reason we are facing the possibility of losing our success.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

The government has heavy influence on the pay of all workers via laws, spending, and what it pays its own workers.

Do elaborate.

Short of payroll taxes that the employers share a part of and minimum wage, I fail to see a "heavy influence" of the government's hand on a company's compensation of its employees.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Umami

This gets at a bigger point about the asymmetry in power between employees and employers, as a point for the existence of unions. Because a manager oversees many employees, the impact of a single employee deciding to walk is not as large on the employer as it is on the employee, and getting a group of employees to leave in protest of specific complaints is impossible without some sort of organization.



Because pensions are used as compensation for lower salaries. You do bring up an interesting point though. In my mind the elimination of pensions and subsequent competition could be very good for teachers, a legitimate salary and a 401k might even lure me into the field. Expensive for taxpayers, though.



That's a red herring argument and you know it. Districts with fewer resources are in areas with fewer resources. District resources are directly linked to people's wages, so yes, it would indicate that their mother HAD to join the work force. Low income wages have been stagnant for decades, it has nothing to do with favor for the nanny state.

Solidarity is apparently not in your vocabulary.

Maybe I want clear enough, we are playing make believe. Hehe

My first response was under the assumption that you only have one Ms Jones second grade teacher, extraordinaire.

About solidarity... Ithas been misused to much to have any meaning to me. Much like rape culture, racist/racism, etc. etc. etc.

[chodeyg]

Looks like a pair of RTW laws passed in Michigan. Sad politics BS being played after the election.

[Blake360]

Unions are nothing more than criminal organizations composed of violent liberals as proven by this video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b18_1355258119

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Blake360

Unions are nothing more than criminal organizations composed of violent liberals as proven by this video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b18_1355258119

Damn troll accounts.

[barrel roll]

So what is the big deal with a law saying no closed shops? Laws saying union memberships are not required?

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

So what is the big deal with a law saying no closed shops? Laws saying union memberships are not required?

Is there a problem with laws saying you must be in a union?

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Is there a problem with laws saying you must be in a union?

Requiring a person to not only join a group, but to pay that group as well? And all for protection?

On the surface, it sounds like a mafioso protection racket.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Requiring a person to not only join a group, but to pay that group as well? And all for protection?

On the surface, it sounds like a mafioso protection racket.

Removal of the choice to participate sounds like an impingement upon freedom and liberty.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Removal of the choice to participate sounds like an impingement upon freedom and liberty.

Right to work doesn't remove choice. But you are right, removal of the choice to not participate is an impingement upon freedom and liberty.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Right to work doesn't remove choice. But you are right, removal of the choice to not participate is an impingement upon freedom and liberty.

We've moved off of the surface?

[barrel roll]

No, I'm saying you're right.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Blake360

as proven by this video

this can not be serious

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

No, I'm saying you're right.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

this can not be serious

GOHL.