FatHobbit;741955 wrote:I think I get what you're saying. Wouldn't the local parents push for more money when things are going better?
There definitely would be, though I'd imagine they would certainly not be the whole of the people who would just be okay with it. There are non-public employees who still have a vested interest in the quality of the education in their district. Namely, that'd be the parents who actually give a damn about their children's education. When the funds are there, if they are passionate about their children getting the education they deserve, I'm betting you'll see plenty of it from them.ernest_t_bass;741947 wrote:Trap, you're missing my argument. There are public sector people who are adamantly fighting for the "playing field to be leveled." They're starting the process/argument, whatever you want to call it.
Yes, in GOOD times, people would agree to paying public employees more, or they wouldn't disagree with BOE's accepting said agreements. However, you would not have people in the private sector starting fights for public workers to make more. Does that make sense?
It may be philosophical if you interpret it as such. I intern interpret your offerings as holding onto a mindset that private sector employees want to bring you down. I disagree with such a philosophical view.ernest_t_bass;741954 wrote:LOL, so philosophical. If you disagree with my position of "bringing public employees down," then why are there people on this very thread who say that? I didn't say the general population. I said "some people." That could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1,000.
In a time when the market is good, and that can be afforded, I'll be right there with you. Owning my own business, I do realize that in the free market, you virtually always see quality mirror cost.Con_Alma;741957 wrote:Again, I disagree. The way you would see people "fight" in good times for the public sector employees to "make more" is through their demands to the board to hire more quality and qualified staff thus forcing an means of attracting such through total compensation.
I will be bluntly honest with you. I don't care if you as a teach make minim wage or $300,000. What I care about is how much have the taxpayers agreed to fund and what does it take to attract the level of applicants that I desire. If it's minimum wage, great. If it's $100,000 per year then I will be disappointed because as a small part of the collective tax base I would be in the minority regarding wanting to fund such a system willing to attract that caliber of employee.
Con_Alma;741963 wrote: I intern interpret your offerings as holding onto a mindset that private sector employees want to bring you down.
Writerbuckeye;741952 wrote: Will there will be schools that simply don't give a damn and go the barest minimum route possible? Yep. It's how our world works, and it's their choice. But I'd be willing to wager a majority of districts are going to want the best teachers they can afford, because it will be community names and superintendent reputations on the line, otherwise.
As a result, I think you'll see many BETTER opportunities for the best in the profession -- assuming they're willing to relocate and take up the challenge that comes with being sought after.
All in all, this will be a good thing for most teacher economically. For the ones who aren't good at their profession (or lazy, complacent, etc.) it will be their loss -- as it should be.
This makes me better understand your Public versus Private mentality. Thank you for sharing it.ernest_t_bass;741968 wrote:Not necessarily. I think it is more human nature. Everyone wants to win, at any cost. There are many instances where there are exceptions. If I'm not winning, one would hope that I work my butt off to get ahead. But the sad truth is, many people will try to "bring others down to their level." Human nature, we do it through gossiping, putting others down, spreading rumors, etc. (This example has nothing to do with teaching, or this public/private debate). However, if I'm winning (insert Charlie Sheen comment) I care much less about "bringing others up to my level" than I would if I were losing.
Yes, but improving the quality of teachers improves the quality of my neighborhood and children's education. Over time, those things could affect my property value and even the local economy at large. A half-intelligent narcissist would still see competing for good educators as a benefit to himself.ernest_t_bass;741968 wrote:Not necessarily. I think it is more human nature. Everyone wants to win, at any cost. There are many instances where there are exceptions. If I'm not winning, one would hope that I work my butt off to get ahead. But the sad truth is, many people will try to "bring others down to their level." Human nature, we do it through gossiping, putting others down, spreading rumors, etc. (This example has nothing to do with teaching, or this public/private debate). However, if I'm winning (insert Charlie Sheen comment) I care much less about "bringing others up to my level" than I would if I were losing.
I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.georgemc80;741977 wrote:...
Ever since the Soviets slingshotted that metal ball into space, this country has been to the point of crazy towards Math and Science. Leaving Humanities pushed to the back. I cannot see a reason why I should make more or less than a math teacher in the same school, teaching the same students....achieving similar results.
Con_Alma;741985 wrote:I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.
ernest_t_bass;741984 wrote:Con, in my example, you would represent one of the "exceptions."
Con_Alma;741992 wrote:Maybe, but it's the collective that matters in terms of public employees
you really trust the average joe voter to do that? so naive. unless its a really wealthy community, all they are going to see is the "raise taxes" part and vote no.Con_Alma;741985 wrote:I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.
just so you know, tax rates are almost 20% lower than they were in 2004.WebFire;741607 wrote:First of all, I think we determined your retirement wasn't changing, correct? And that even for newcomers, their retirement is far better than the private sector's options.
Second, just because you joined it that way, doesn't mean it was right and should stay that way. Should we continue making our schools poor or keep raising taxes so you can have a cushy retirement plan? WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY! Why is that hard to understand?
Webfire wrote:...WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY! Why is that hard to understand?
I'll rephrase based on my opinion. The people are not willing to provide more through taxes for funding purposes.Glory Days;742017 wrote:just so you know, tax rates are almost 20% lower than they were in 2004.
Writerbuckeye;741667 wrote:Protest all you like -- but ignoring the economics that brought about this legislation and claiming union busting (while ignoring a system that can't be sustained) comes across as disingenuous, just so you know.
If there weren't egregious examples all over the place as to how public unions have created a huge economic strain on local and state governments (not just Ohio, but elsewhere), you might have more credibility when you say this was only about destroying the union, and not about providing governments with tools to survive.
I have yet to have one discussion with any anti-SB5 person who can refute the economics of public employee unions and the strain they've put on our system...and the clear examples that it is an economic system that could not be sustained for much longer without very dramatic changes, much like we're seeing with SB5.
All I've heard from those folks is the angst about personal hardships the bill will cause, and foolish rhetoric about how the bill is an attack on the middle class (classic Alinsky rhetoric, by the way) when, in fact, it's the middle class that has to foot most of the bill for a system that is unsustainable. While some of the personal stories are compelling on their own level, they are not compelling arguments to keep a system that has all but brought some government entities to bankruptcy.
But please, protest away.
Con_Alma;741985 wrote:I can answer that. It's good question. It's because people want and are willing to pay more to get a more quality math and science teacher and they are harder to attract than a good humanities teach.
People want one thing more and are willing to pay more to get it. It's their education and their money.
