Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, it means they only choose not to starve to death in the streets. I'd say half the working population get paid less than they're actually worth due to fear and a lack of information. I've quit jobs that try to pull that crap with me, I don't see any value in accepting low wages
That’s exactly what I said.
They see the value of working for someone at the certain wage is much more valuable than starving on the street. This is literally the reason most of us work including me.
You refuse to do certain work because you believe the value of your labor is much higher.
Settle means they see the value they gain exceeding the value of their labor.
True story. I had to get household help due to a medical problem.
I found a lady who worked in my neighborhood. I paid her a little above minimum wage, her bus fare and took her home.
One day a neighbor lady knocked on my door and informed me the neighborhood decided I was paying the cleaning lady too much and need to cut it out. I was ruining the n-----.
No, some people are not paid what they are worth. Many are paid what they can get. I told the neighbor lady to KMA on the courthouse steps. Next week the cleaning lady got a raise.
I would like to challenge the "equal opportunity" motif. Liberals believe it's not "socially just" for wealthy areas to have better funded and overall better quality schools than poorer areas. But, don't wealthy areas pay more in taxes? Why is unfair to get what you pay for? Heck, if I am able to afford to live in whatever neighborhood Obama lives in, you bet I'm going to demand good schools! Do liberals really believe that Bill Gates should be forced to send his kids to crappy schools just so things can be "more equal"? Or if we try to make every school the same, what will be the incentive for any school to be decent? Won't rich people just flock to private schools or homeschooling? Would the next step be to make homeschooling illegal so no one has an "unfair aadvantag"? Just wondering how far we should take this equality stuff. It seems like the book Animal Farm.
Rich people can afford to send their kids to private schools.
Tax dollars for schools should be used to ensure that one can get an equally good education at any public school.
By your rationale, all public servives should be better in wealthier areas. The roads the wealthy drive on, their garbage collection service, their water service, DMV offices...all better. After all, they pay more in total tax dollars.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Liberals believe it's not "socially just" for wealthy areas to have better funded and overall better quality schools than poorer areas.
In my general area, the poorer towns get MORE funding per student than wealthier towns yet still produce barely mediocre results. Beyond a basic funding level, it's about Darwin, not dollars. That may not be politically correct to state but it is most certainly accurate.
In my state there are many communities where the middle class taxpayers have chosen to forego high property taxes and instead send their children to private schools. The public schools in those areas are underfunded to the point where the students who attend are in second-world conditions--decrepit buildings with substandard resources. In communities like mine, where the middle class sends their children to public schools, the buildings are resources are first-world quality and even the poor children get a good education. It's not just the rich who only want to fund schools for only their children.
It should be possible to fund schools separately from property taxes and ensure that even poor children with absent parents can get the same services that a middle-class child with active parents gets. We can't be a first-world country when a quarter of our students are growing up in second-world conditions. Other industrialized nations have poor children, but they don't underfund the schools for those children like we do.
And we can't be a first world country if poor people breed more prestigiously than everyone else, passing their learned helplessness down from generation to generation.
It doesn't matter how much money we throw at the schools and how good we make the schools to be. The kids with absent parents will not learn anything if they're not taught to value education.
And we can't be a first world country if poor people breed more prestigiously than everyone else, passing their learned helplessness down from generation to generation.
It doesn't matter how much money we throw at the schools and how good we make the schools to be. The kids with absent parents will not learn anything if they're not taught to value education.
I agree with you there. One thing I have noticed over the past few years is that there seems to be fewer pregnant girls at school. There are still a few, but one year I had 22 babies produced by my students, both male and female, some of them the parents of the same babies. I'll probably be teaching the babies in just a few more years.
This year I haven't counted, but I bet I wouldn't have but about 5-7 at the most, and only 1 where I am certain. I teach the young mother who is determined to get a good education and job that will allow her to move out of the inner city.
It would be better if our country didn't have such a split personality when it comes to reproductive health over a range of issues. Another young lady just told me that she got on birth control because she doesn't want to jeopardize her education. That is the message that must get out to young girls. I don't know if there is much hope for boys, considering that so many men don't seem to do much better than they do.
The value for education must be present in all areas of life, so that kids whose homes are devoid of it will find that away from home, education is what matters. The cultural life of a city can help inspire kids who don't see that inspiration at home.
If it doesn't matter how much we spend to make our schools good, then we should at least spend enough to make sure that they are. I would at least like another $400 spent on me at my school so I wouldn't have to spend my own money on a Black Friday projector to replace the one that has more spots than the Milky Way on a starry night.
That situation shouldn't exist. Every classroom should have the minimum of working equipment for the teachers and students to use. Some of our teachers don't even have computers in their rooms. I have two, but it took my entire budget for two years to get them. I buy my own paper and ink, to the tune of about $200-300 per year so that I had the money available for the computers and the printer. The projector is over the limit of my budget, and I couldn't do a split purchase, so I got the computer instead, with an additional $25 discount from my local Office Depot manager to be able to put it on my state-issued card.
I am irritated with the teacher who don't use the taxpayers' money wisely, but I am not one of them. I remember the days when my budget was all of $40 a year and I am thankful for what I get, even though it is less every year than it was five years ago. And now it looks like the measly $250 tax break that teachers received by the IRS will be gone hereafter. Oh well, I'm a missionary and I don't do it for the money. But it's another reason that people who are not missionaries will pursue a more lucrative line of work where you don't have to pay extra just to be able to do your job.
Settle means they see the value they gain exceeding the value of their labor.
No, that's not what that means since "settling" is generally less than ideal, and often a compromise between two parties, neither getting everything that they want.
I don't believe there is an inherent $ value that can be assigned to a job/position. It's just a matter of what a person settles for (or doesn't). If they can negotiate really well, alone or with a group, they can increase the compensation they receive for the same job, or maybe reduce the risk, or workload, or time required to work.
The same job in two different places can garner wildly different wages.
Settling also does not mean resignment, you can settle for something now and work towards more in the future if you care enough.
Well I think we settled it you are ok with people working full time being denied housing because they don't make enough your ideology is morally bankrupt.
In fact it is anyone who callously dismisses people who work hard and they don't deserve even the most basic apartment is morally bankrupt. A pathological hatred of working people is not something I can get behind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
