You don't know any facts as this is untrue. Kindergarden starts age 5 and many districts provide preschool for age 4
Yep, but are they part of the official educational system? I mean over here, ‘maternal school', even though not mandatory, is run by state teachers and is free.
BOY we need to dismantle our teacher unions here. We’re getting the shaft.
It should be noted that pre-JFK, public worker (government employee) unions were not allowed collective bargaining. Public sector unions need to be made illegal. They are a massive danger to economic recovery.
It should be noted that pre-JFK, public worker (government employee) unions were not allowed collective bargaining. Public sector unions need to be made illegal. They are a massive danger to economic recovery.
The rise of government-worker unionism has also combined with the broader transformation of the American economy to produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class.
The argument is that the middle classes are a danger to the economy. Roll on the oligarchy. Well. Continue to roll on.
The rise of government-worker unionism has also combined with the broader transformation of the American economy to produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class.
The argument is that the middle classes are a danger to the economy. Roll on the oligarchy. Well. Continue to roll on.
Nonsense. Private sector unions have no relation to public sector (govt employee) unions. That there is confusion on this distinction is due to the power and prevalence of union propaganda.
Non-government employee unions are not to my liking, however they are protected under the Constitution by freedom of association. Even FDR recognized the danger of govt worker unions, and his fears have been borne out. They have become so powerful and entrenched that the associated "perks" have become as bad as the many other entitlement programs. A country cannot sustain millions of retirees with massive benefit programs currently connected to them. Most states will face bankruptcy thanks to the existence of this union/government collusion.
Nonsense. Private sector unions have no relation to public sector (govt employee) unions. That there is confusion on this distinction is due to the power and prevalence of union propaganda.
Non-government employee unions are not to my liking, however they are protected under the Constitution by freedom of association. Even FDR recognized the danger of govt worker unions, and his fears have been borne out. They have become so powerful and entrenched that the associated "perks" have become as bad as the many other entitlement programs. A country cannot sustain millions of retirees with massive benefit programs currently connected to them.
I was merely quoting from an article which you linked which, clearly, bemoans the very existence of a middle class of "janitors to jailers" comparing them unfavourably to the decline of the private sector middle class. It's apparantly supportative of that decline and wishes it to spread to more workers.
I was merely quoting from an article which you linked which, clearly, bemoans the very existence of a middle class of "janitors to jailers" comparing them unfavourably to the decline of the private sector middle class. It's apparantly supportative of that decline and wishes it to spread to more workers.
The existence of government employee jobs which pay "better" than the private sector has contributed to the decimation of a competitive private sector. You have it exactly backwards. How can a business that faces real-world competitive pressures compete with a job that derives all of its benefits from taxation? The sky is the limit and there is no balance, only political-driven thievery which is used to pander to supporters, which in turn results in a corrupt cycle of jobs and payoffs.
The existence of government employee jobs which pay "better" than the private sector has contributed to the decimation of a competitive private sector. You have it exactly backwards. How can a business that faces real-world competitive pressures compete with a job that derives all of its benefits from taxation? The sky is the limit and there is no balance, only political-driven thievery which is used to pander to supporters, which in turn results in a corrupt cycle of jobs and payoffs.
Are you hoping to get rid of all public sector jobs or just make them so badly paid nobody would do them? Your article came to the wrong conclusion despite presenting the facts clearly enough. The problem for middle class private sector America isn't the public sector unions but the lack of private sector unions. It kinda even admits that. And then goes on to wish the destruction of the only sizeable middle class left.
Yep, but are they part of the official educational system? I mean over here, ‘maternal school', even though not mandatory, is run by state teachers and is free.
Is it really easier to ask than to simply go to wikipedia and find out? The official education system varies a bit from state to state but is called "K-12" or Kindergarden through 12th grade. It's the public school system and free.
Yep, but are they part of the official educational system? I mean over here, ‘maternal school', even though not mandatory, is run by state teachers and is free.
Is it really easier to ask than to simply go to wikipedia and find out? The official education system varies a bit from state to state but is called "K-12" or Kindergarden through 12th grade. It's the public school system and free.
Do you have a point to make?
There's no need for you to be so rude towards EauVive.
If you don't want to answer a perfectly reasonable question in a civil fashion, then shut up.
Are you hoping to get rid of all public sector jobs or just make them so badly paid nobody would do them? Your article came to the wrong conclusion despite presenting the facts clearly enough. The problem for middle class private sector America isn't the public sector unions but the lack of private sector unions. It kinda even admits that. And then goes on to wish the destruction of the only sizeable middle class left.
The middle class is being crushed because taxes are being dumped on their shoulders and because of misguided economic policies that have radically devalued the dollar.
I don't intend on wiping out unions. As I said, private sector unions are constitutional. It's the public sector unions that are the root of the problem. And private sector unions are disappearing because they no longer serve a purpose...one reason why union bosses have been vainly attempting to organize fast food workers and push for a national increase in the minimum wage (both actions of which which will result in the accelerated deployment of automation to replace these low-skill workers).
BOY we need to dismantle our teacher unions here. We’re getting the shaft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
BOY we need to dismantle our teacher unions here. We’re getting the shaft.
I’ve pretty much no clue if this is ironic or no. I don’t know a single fact about US Elementary school system, except there is no (free) school under 6 years, as far as I understand.
Ironic or misinformed, it makes the bizarre assumption that teachers are only working when they have class in session.
Socialism impoverishes a nation in the pursuit of elevating a few. Capitalism elevates a nation by creating opportunity, which Is the tool for individuals to lift themselves out of poverty.
I'll think I'll cast my lot with Einstein. He felt capitalism breeds (by selecting for) predators.
Socialism, it seems to me, tends to select for human (and humane) beings.
And, for what it's worth, I also feel that, of the two,
socialism is far more compatible with democracy than is capitalism.
It should be noted that pre-JFK, public worker (government employee) unions were not allowed collective bargaining. Public sector unions need to be made illegal. They are a massive danger to economic recovery.
Originally Posted by asdasd
Are you hoping to get rid of all public sector jobs or just make them so badly paid nobody would do them?
Here’s the thing: many government jobs can be done beautifully in a less-regulated private sector and public sector unions are… well, the equivalent of ‘unregulated’.
Originally Posted by boredumb
Ironic or misinformed, it makes the bizarre assumption that teachers are only working when they have class in session.
The middle class is being crushed because taxes are being dumped on their shoulders and because of misguided economic policies that have radically devalued the dollar.
Have taxes risen dramatically? If not then it's something else that's wrong. Income in the private sector has fallen for middle and lower earners but increased for the top earners. That's because the attitude of job creators is that a job is a privilege and can be valued at whatever they see fit, which is why those jobs are not competitive with public sector job salaries. I would agree with you that many public sector salaries are obscene and unjustified. This is visible in the UK public health service:
Income inequality is part of the problem there too. The executives are being paid 16x entry level workers who are keeping the system running. That leads to poor quality care because why should entry level workers care about their job when it pays so little? The execs can pay off homes and retire in say 3-5 years no matter what happens to the whole system they are running.
Housing costs are a big problem, which was caused entirely by the private sector and not managing risk properly. Housing costs need to come down. The UK government is taking some steps to help there:
Apple tackling payments is good but it's really just another way to pay, it doesn't change people's debts or anything like that. If they got into prefab ? Homes, they could have a few standard but very modern designs where the interiors could be shuffled to create variations. The whole package would have to go for around $50-100k per home. Something like this:
You'd only need a living space, maybe a couple of bedrooms, a bathroom and a kitchen area with the living space and kitchen below and bathroom and bedrooms above. Time to build would have to be minimal. One plus is it can have all home automation built-in. They can cut all the parts into prefabs and just ship them out when needed. Say their build costs minus appliances were $30k, if they invested even $30b, that's 1m homes and if they sell for $50k, they make $20b profit. Apple would make back the money instantly because the debt would be taken on by mortgage lenders and the houses are low cost so the mortgages would be much more affordable despite lowered middle income.
One difficulty is where to build the homes. Getting the land to build on near jobs is tricky. But, the intention isn't to make these homes replace larger homes. It's just to add a supply of affordable homes to drive down the costs of other homes. Being prefabs, they should also be easy to relocate should the need arise.
socialism is far more compatible with democracy than is capitalism.
There isn't a system that can work with either exclusively. There needs to be an incentive to work and to contribute and there needs to be a safety net when things go wrong for whatever reason whether it's too many people at the top of the private sector acting in their self interest or too many people in the public sector acting in theirs. The only way to arrive at a perfect system is to remove the problem of dependence, which simply isn't possible. Taking away a support network leaves poverty, it's been tried and that's what happens and it would collapse the private sector because of a lack of a healthy and skilled workforce. Better healthcare means people live longer and aren't working - providing state incomes for the elderly for 30 years or more is a really difficult problem to sort out.
But if people could pay off their homes sooner then they'd be able to save for retirement. Most millionaires it seems live in relatively modest homes.
"Ninety percent of millionaires live in homes valued below $1 million; 28.3% live in homes valued at $300,000 or less.
On average, millionaires have a mortgage that is less than one-third of the value of their homes.
If you really want to reduce your housing bill, join the 67,000 millionaires who live in mobile homes."
The idea is not to get too heavily into debt (mortgage or credit card debt or student loans). The faster that people can reach financial freedom, the more jobs they can make available and the less they are dependent on the state. The people at the top always complain about takers but it's because they keep far more income than they need, if people at the top helped move more people towards financial freedom than towards poverty then there wouldn't be so many takers. Some people prefer to be part of the problem and complain about it than part of the solution. A cash billionaire could easily put the cash into property and allow people to live in the homes for free. They lose nothing by doing this as they still own the property.
The people at the top always complain about takers but it's because they keep far more income than they need, if people at the top helped move more people towards financial freedom than towards poverty then there wouldn't be so many takers. Some people prefer to be part of the problem and complain about it than part of the solution.
The irony of course is how many of those on top were takers themselves in the form of corporate welfare, ridiculous grants, and tax cuts?
You say that if you have lots of money, you should buy property and receive no rent! That's never going to happen for as long as money exists.
You say that housing costs need to come down, yet they have risen inexorably every decade and show no signs of slowing, for very good reasons.
You give examples of ? houses, yet these would be completely impractical in UK, because they take up far too much space.
The only thing that could possibly lower house prices here is a ruthless crackdown on immigration. Until such time, property is set to escalate in value. Property prices are out of all proportion to income on a historical basis and have been for a long time. We are set to become a kingdom of renters rather than owners.
Ironic or misinformed, it makes the bizarre assumption that teachers are only working when they have class in session.
Where? How?
Well, when you stated we needed to disband teacher's unions, I assumed you meant that they had it too easy - perhaps I mis-interpreted your meaning? This more recent comment would indicate that I did.
Well, when you stated we needed to disband teacher’s unions, I assumed you meant that they had it too easy…
They have it far, far too hard. Unions exist to constrict their rights, pay, and benefits. A free market teaching system would see corporations competing for the best teachers (with incentives to the aforementioned categories) and would also see terrible teachers (who are presently unfireable for anything less than lawbreaking) punished, fired, and removed from the profession.
Comments
You don't know any facts as this is untrue. Kindergarden starts age 5 and many districts provide preschool for age 4
Yep, but are they part of the official educational system? I mean over here, ‘maternal school', even though not mandatory, is run by state teachers and is free.
It should be noted that pre-JFK, public worker (government employee) unions were not allowed collective bargaining. Public sector unions need to be made illegal. They are a massive danger to economic recovery.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions
Indeed. From that article.
The rise of government-worker unionism has also combined with the broader transformation of the American economy to produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class.
The argument is that the middle classes are a danger to the economy. Roll on the oligarchy. Well. Continue to roll on.
Nonsense. Private sector unions have no relation to public sector (govt employee) unions. That there is confusion on this distinction is due to the power and prevalence of union propaganda.
Non-government employee unions are not to my liking, however they are protected under the Constitution by freedom of association. Even FDR recognized the danger of govt worker unions, and his fears have been borne out. They have become so powerful and entrenched that the associated "perks" have become as bad as the many other entitlement programs. A country cannot sustain millions of retirees with massive benefit programs currently connected to them. Most states will face bankruptcy thanks to the existence of this union/government collusion.
I was merely quoting from an article which you linked which, clearly, bemoans the very existence of a middle class of "janitors to jailers" comparing them unfavourably to the decline of the private sector middle class. It's apparantly supportative of that decline and wishes it to spread to more workers.
The existence of government employee jobs which pay "better" than the private sector has contributed to the decimation of a competitive private sector. You have it exactly backwards. How can a business that faces real-world competitive pressures compete with a job that derives all of its benefits from taxation? The sky is the limit and there is no balance, only political-driven thievery which is used to pander to supporters, which in turn results in a corrupt cycle of jobs and payoffs.
Are you hoping to get rid of all public sector jobs or just make them so badly paid nobody would do them? Your article came to the wrong conclusion despite presenting the facts clearly enough. The problem for middle class private sector America isn't the public sector unions but the lack of private sector unions. It kinda even admits that. And then goes on to wish the destruction of the only sizeable middle class left.
Yep, but are they part of the official educational system? I mean over here, ‘maternal school', even though not mandatory, is run by state teachers and is free.
Is it really easier to ask than to simply go to wikipedia and find out? The official education system varies a bit from state to state but is called "K-12" or Kindergarden through 12th grade. It's the public school system and free.
Do you have a point to make?
Yep, but are they part of the official educational system? I mean over here, ‘maternal school', even though not mandatory, is run by state teachers and is free.
Is it really easier to ask than to simply go to wikipedia and find out? The official education system varies a bit from state to state but is called "K-12" or Kindergarden through 12th grade. It's the public school system and free.
Do you have a point to make?
There's no need for you to be so rude towards EauVive.
If you don't want to answer a perfectly reasonable question in a civil fashion, then shut up.
The middle class is being crushed because taxes are being dumped on their shoulders and because of misguided economic policies that have radically devalued the dollar.
I don't intend on wiping out unions. As I said, private sector unions are constitutional. It's the public sector unions that are the root of the problem. And private sector unions are disappearing because they no longer serve a purpose...one reason why union bosses have been vainly attempting to organize fast food workers and push for a national increase in the minimum wage (both actions of which which will result in the accelerated deployment of automation to replace these low-skill workers).
BOY we need to dismantle our teacher unions here. We’re getting the shaft.
BOY we need to dismantle our teacher unions here. We’re getting the shaft.
I’ve pretty much no clue if this is ironic or no. I don’t know a single fact about US Elementary school system, except there is no (free) school under 6 years, as far as I understand.
Ironic or misinformed, it makes the bizarre assumption that teachers are only working when they have class in session.
I'll think I'll cast my lot with Einstein. He felt capitalism breeds (by selecting for) predators.
Socialism, it seems to me, tends to select for human (and humane) beings.
And, for what it's worth, I also feel that, of the two,
socialism is far more compatible with democracy than is capitalism.
Teachers are basically slaves in the US.
Here’s the thing: many government jobs can be done beautifully in a less-regulated private sector and public sector unions are… well, the equivalent of ‘unregulated’.
Ironic or misinformed, it makes the bizarre assumption that teachers are only working when they have class in session.
Where? How?
Have taxes risen dramatically? If not then it's something else that's wrong. Income in the private sector has fallen for middle and lower earners but increased for the top earners. That's because the attitude of job creators is that a job is a privilege and can be valued at whatever they see fit, which is why those jobs are not competitive with public sector job salaries. I would agree with you that many public sector salaries are obscene and unjustified. This is visible in the UK public health service:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10009054/The-8000-NHS-staff-on-six-figure-salaries.html
Income inequality is part of the problem there too. The executives are being paid 16x entry level workers who are keeping the system running. That leads to poor quality care because why should entry level workers care about their job when it pays so little? The execs can pay off homes and retire in say 3-5 years no matter what happens to the whole system they are running.
Housing costs are a big problem, which was caused entirely by the private sector and not managing risk properly. Housing costs need to come down. The UK government is taking some steps to help there:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-number-of-available-homes
Housing payments take up a significant portion of income for lower earners so those need to come down by creating an oversupply of affordable homes.
It's a shame homes aren't being mass-produced and well-designed. There are cheaper DIY setups like this:
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-tour-through-the-downloadable-diy-smart-home
but they look hideous.
Apple tackling payments is good but it's really just another way to pay, it doesn't change people's debts or anything like that. If they got into prefab ? Homes, they could have a few standard but very modern designs where the interiors could be shuffled to create variations. The whole package would have to go for around $50-100k per home. Something like this:
You'd only need a living space, maybe a couple of bedrooms, a bathroom and a kitchen area with the living space and kitchen below and bathroom and bedrooms above. Time to build would have to be minimal. One plus is it can have all home automation built-in. They can cut all the parts into prefabs and just ship them out when needed. Say their build costs minus appliances were $30k, if they invested even $30b, that's 1m homes and if they sell for $50k, they make $20b profit. Apple would make back the money instantly because the debt would be taken on by mortgage lenders and the houses are low cost so the mortgages would be much more affordable despite lowered middle income.
One difficulty is where to build the homes. Getting the land to build on near jobs is tricky. But, the intention isn't to make these homes replace larger homes. It's just to add a supply of affordable homes to drive down the costs of other homes. Being prefabs, they should also be easy to relocate should the need arise.
There isn't a system that can work with either exclusively. There needs to be an incentive to work and to contribute and there needs to be a safety net when things go wrong for whatever reason whether it's too many people at the top of the private sector acting in their self interest or too many people in the public sector acting in theirs. The only way to arrive at a perfect system is to remove the problem of dependence, which simply isn't possible. Taking away a support network leaves poverty, it's been tried and that's what happens and it would collapse the private sector because of a lack of a healthy and skilled workforce. Better healthcare means people live longer and aren't working - providing state incomes for the elderly for 30 years or more is a really difficult problem to sort out.
But if people could pay off their homes sooner then they'd be able to save for retirement. Most millionaires it seems live in relatively modest homes.
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/02/09/nine-lessons-in-wealth-building-from-the-millionaire-next-door/
"Ninety percent of millionaires live in homes valued below $1 million; 28.3% live in homes valued at $300,000 or less.
On average, millionaires have a mortgage that is less than one-third of the value of their homes.
If you really want to reduce your housing bill, join the 67,000 millionaires who live in mobile homes."
The idea is not to get too heavily into debt (mortgage or credit card debt or student loans). The faster that people can reach financial freedom, the more jobs they can make available and the less they are dependent on the state. The people at the top always complain about takers but it's because they keep far more income than they need, if people at the top helped move more people towards financial freedom than towards poverty then there wouldn't be so many takers. Some people prefer to be part of the problem and complain about it than part of the solution. A cash billionaire could easily put the cash into property and allow people to live in the homes for free. They lose nothing by doing this as they still own the property.
At home grading tests, and papers.
Heck yeah they are. But I don’t see where I said their job only encompasses the 7:20 to 2:30 that kids are at school.
The irony of course is how many of those on top were takers themselves in the form of corporate welfare, ridiculous grants, and tax cuts?
Re your housing post: your naivety is astounding.
You say that if you have lots of money, you should buy property and receive no rent! That's never going to happen for as long as money exists.
You say that housing costs need to come down, yet they have risen inexorably every decade and show no signs of slowing, for very good reasons.
You give examples of ? houses, yet these would be completely impractical in UK, because they take up far too much space.
The only thing that could possibly lower house prices here is a ruthless crackdown on immigration. Until such time, property is set to escalate in value. Property prices are out of all proportion to income on a historical basis and have been for a long time. We are set to become a kingdom of renters rather than owners.
Ironic or misinformed, it makes the bizarre assumption that teachers are only working when they have class in session.
Where? How?
Well, when you stated we needed to disband teacher's unions, I assumed you meant that they had it too easy - perhaps I mis-interpreted your meaning? This more recent comment would indicate that I did.
They have it far, far too hard. Unions exist to constrict their rights, pay, and benefits. A free market teaching system would see corporations competing for the best teachers (with incentives to the aforementioned categories) and would also see terrible teachers (who are presently unfireable for anything less than lawbreaking) punished, fired, and removed from the profession.