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.
Sure, let's make them more like charter schools. Where the founders and usually their friends & family members all make well over 6 figures while the teachers are still treated like hired guns. PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING so rich people can pay slave wages if "the free market allows it." Soon you'll have HS dropouts teaching your kids.
Who talked about privatizing anything?
Are the marines and Navy SEALs also on some kind of 'tenure' scheme?
Are you able to defend tenure at all?
Are you claiming that the millions of teachers with above market wages would suddenly stop teaching if tenure were revoked?
In this economy, what would they do instead that would pay them more?
Poor and minority students are especially hurt by the laws because "grossly ineffective teachers" more often work in their schools, Los Angeles County Judge Rolf M. Treu said..
I disagree. When are the parents of these poor and minority students going to take responsibility for their terrible parenting skills? At the very least, these parents have to show their children the importance of a solid academic education and to always respect their elders and teachers.
It's not a teacher's job to be a Bill Cosby comedian to charm and trick their students into learning. Students have got to want to learn if if their teacher is some awkard geeky person who stutters when they speak. Knowledge is knowledge no matter how it is presented. And a teacher shouldn't have to look and act like a celebrity in order to get their student's respect and attention.
And if a tenured teacher is tired looking and and not brimming with enthusiasm to teach, it's the fault of the parents who for decades have given them little to work with in regards to having students eager to learn. These days, how is a teacher to compete for a student's attention when they all have the latest smartphone to follow their friends' Facbook posts?
Anyway, it's the parents who need to get their act together to be better parents. Parents have to stop trying to be their children's best friend and instead lay down some discipline and be firing up their kids to want to learn. And to turn into productive adults instead of showing them all the loopholes to free government handouts.
Are the marines and Navy SEALs also on some kind of 'tenure' scheme?
Are you able to defend tenure at all?
Are you claiming that the millions of teachers with above market wages would suddenly stop teaching if tenure were revoked?
In this economy, what would they do instead that would pay them more?
I am generally for an expansion of worker rights in both the public & private spheres. The two-headed evil serpent of Reagan & Thatcher did their best to dismantle unions here and in Britain to serve the best interests of their corporate overlords. The decimation of the middle class is their ignominious legacy. You even hear dupes like Marc Paollela on city-data parrot that unrestrained capialism is "freedom." Even Henry Ford knew his workers needed a decent wage to afford the Model T. Many Americans were SHOCKED that people in Britain hated her so much that they were glad she was dead. They're not as gullible as we are.
I am generally for an expansion of worker rights in both the public & private spheres. The two-headed evil serpent of Reagan & Thatcher did their best to dismantle unions here and in Britain to serve the best interests of their corporate overlords. The decimation of the middle class is their ignominious legacy. You even hear dupes like Marc Paollela on city-data parrot that unrestrained capialism is "freedom." Even Henry Ford knew his workers needed a decent wage to afford the Model T. Many Americans were SHOCKED that people in Britain hated her so much that they were glad she was dead. They're not as gullible as we are.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. You have to understand that there are many types of unions out there. Some unions such as the AFA in existance to fight for higher wages and restricted work hours/days. For flight attendants to demand this from toxic management? Totally dead on. But the NJEA are the opposite -- completely greedy at this point. More like a bunch of bullies than an actual union.
I am generally for an expansion of worker rights in both the public & private spheres. The two-headed evil serpent of Reagan & Thatcher did their best to dismantle unions here and in Britain to serve the best interests of their corporate overlords. The decimation of the middle class is their ignominious legacy. You even hear dupes like Marc Paollela on city-data parrot that unrestrained capialism is "freedom." Even Henry Ford knew his workers needed a decent wage to afford the Model T. Many Americans were SHOCKED that people in Britain hated her so much that they were glad she was dead. They're not as gullible as we are.
It is very easy to pick the good guys and the bad guys, and blame everything on "the bad guys", but in reality, both sides have been screwing over the American people at the behest of their corporate masters. The democrats do it under the guise of aid to the poor people of the world, which makes it more palatable to people who would normally be inclined to vote against them if they knew their true agenda. Carter and his free trade agreements, the trilateral commission, and Clinton had his NAFTA, and they are all for helping out the illegal immigrants "because they are poor". Both sides have done their part to decimate the middle class, its just that the republicans are more up front about their motivations. There was a time when we had all the money and the rest of the world had very little. It was ours to keep or give away, and we were duped into giving it away. From a world view, perhaps we did the "moral" thing, but if you accept that premise you can't really complain about the decimation of the middle class. From that point of view, we clearly had too much while others had too little, and now there is more balance in the world. As I said in my other post to you, I prefer it the old way...but that is just me being selfish.
Still waiting to see any justification for why teachers are such special creatures of God requiring tenure. In this specific case (CA), they get tenured in two years before many are even properly credentialed.
Why can they not hold their jobs like 99% of others - including government employees - do?
I disagree with tenure and I also disagree with civil service protection which is sometimes stronger then tenure. Of course that never gets brought up.
It is very easy to pick the good guys and the bad guys, and blame everything on "the bad guys", but in reality, both sides have been screwing over the American people at the behest of their corporate masters. The democrats do it under the guise of aid to the poor people of the world, which makes it more palatable to people who would normally be inclined to vote against them if they knew their true agenda. Carter and his free trade agreements, the trilateral commission, and Clinton had his NAFTA, and they are all for helping out the illegal immigrants "because they are poor". Both sides have done their part to decimate the middle class, its just that the republicans are more up front about their motivations. There was a time when we had all the money and the rest of the world had very little. It was ours to keep or give away, and we were duped into giving it away. From a world view, perhaps we did the "moral" thing, but if you accept that premise you can't really complain about the decimation of the middle class. From that point of view, we clearly had too much while others had too little, and now there is more balance in the world. As I said in my other post to you, I prefer it the old way...but that is just me being selfish.
You might be right. Maybe America as a place where upward mobility for generations was considered almost a birthright is nearly over. I think the free marketeers rushed the process by decades. But our "run" of 100 years at the top is nothing to sneeze at.
Maybe it's not too late to teach the kids Chinese.
You might be right. Maybe America as a place where upward mobility for generations was considered almost a birthright is nearly over. I think the free marketeers rushed the process by decades. But our "run" of 100 years at the top is nothing to sneeze at.
Maybe it's not too late to teach the kids Chinese.
If it makes you feel any better, it's not just us. The other historically wealthy nations are going through the same thing. The income disparity in Western Europe is growing as well, and in most instances, the wealthier the country, the more the disparity growth. For example, Germany is exactly on par with the US. The exception seems to be the scandinavian countries, for reasons I am unsure about. These countries tend to be extremely socialistic by US standards with small, homogenous populations. My feeling is that that probably has something to do with it.
In the global economy, there is less upward mobility for us, at least for the time being, but there is increased upward mobility in places where people have absolutely nothing. It sucks for most of us, but at the same time, if you are smart and pick the right field, there are opportunities unlike we have ever seen before. People can trade stocks, commodities, currencies right from their home at all hours of the day. People can make their own studio quality recordings on their iPads or laptops. Same for videos. People have access to literally billions of people to sell whatever it is they are selling. But for your rank and file factory worker, construction worker, retail worker, etc, the only mobility is downward. That has a ripple effect to those of us that serve them as well. Doctors still make a decent living, but back when the middle class was strong and everybody had good insurance, doctors did much better. Public servants are not going to see the types of raises they have in the past and they will continue to see benefits cut as the tax base is stagnant and not keeping up with expenses and interest payments on debt. Would an Eisenhower-like tax structure help? I don't know. I think it worked back then because the wealthy were a captive audience. Where were they going to go? Nowhere was any better. In this day and age, you have fax machines, email, texting, twitter, cnbc APPs, etc, and it is only a short flight to more tax friendly places, and I'm sure people will start using them if you try to take away 90% of their income like they did back then. The world has become very small. So after all my ranting, in answer to your question, yes. Learning Chinese would open up a lot of doors for them.
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 06-16-2014 at 09:42 PM..
You might be right. Maybe America as a place where upward mobility for generations was considered almost a birthright is nearly over. I think the free marketeers rushed the process by decades. But our "run" of 100 years at the top is nothing to sneeze at.
Maybe it's not too late to teach the kids Chinese.
That statement is borne out of nothing but ignorance.
Even hearing about the living conditions of the early settlers as well as the pioneers who headed west to get something for themselves will give modern day union babies seizures. Yes, there was upward mobility. But it was through tears and sweat and toil. The concept of 'welfare' did not exist till the 30s when some communist wannabes decided to ape the red revolution.
The post WW2 era was an anomaly. The productive capacity of the world had been thoroughly destroyed by the war. In addition, massive manpower losses also increased the marginal value of labor in the developed world that fought the war.
The US, and more specifically labor in the US, reaped the benefits of this temporary advantage. However, even that barely lasted a couple of decades.
It started unraveling in the early 60s as those left out (mostly blacks) started demanding their fair share. And it totally unraveled once the rest of the world came up to speed and a billion Chinese were finally set free.
Once anomalous 20 year period over all the history of mankind cannot be a benchmark of any sort.
That statement is borne out of nothing but ignorance.
Even hearing about the living conditions of the early settlers as well as the pioneers who headed west to get something for themselves will give modern day union babies seizures. Yes, there was upward mobility. But it was through tears and sweat and toil. The concept of 'welfare' did not exist till the 30s when some communist wannabes decided to ape the red revolution.
The post WW2 era was an anomaly. The productive capacity of the world had been thoroughly destroyed by the war. In addition, massive manpower losses also increased the marginal value of labor in the developed world that fought the war.
The US, and more specifically labor in the US, reaped the benefits of this temporary advantage. However, even that barely lasted a couple of decades.
It started unraveling in the early 60s as those left out (mostly blacks) started demanding their fair share. And it totally unraveled once the rest of the world came up to speed and a billion Chinese were finally set free.
Once anomalous 20 year period over all the history of mankind cannot be a benchmark of any sort.
I don't think so. I don't think he is using it as a benchmark as much as an "ideal". And what is ignorant about that. Isnt that what all countries should strive for? The prosperity and best life possible for the majority of its citizens?
We all know about WWII and how we got to where we were. The issue I have with it is how easily and how willing we were to give it up so quickly. Some very smart economists consulted with corporations and told them what any 1st year economy major could have told them. That Americans can afford too many tubes of Crest toothpaste. Too many bottles of Coke. Too much of everything. No matter how much money you have, you are not going to buy more than 1 or 2 tubes of Crest at a time. Meanwhile there are billions of people out there that are an untapped market, only they can't even afford 1 tube. If you build factories in poor countries, not only do you save a fortune in labor costs, but at the same time you are creating a whole new consumer base to buy your products. So these companies paid a lot of money to our elected representatives to remove road blocks and make it easier for them to do this. And it had nothing to do with "freeing the Chinese". We brought them into the fold, and they would be stupid not to take advantage of that. And they are not stupid.
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.
