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.
No. Everything is negotiable, especially when bargaining collectively. No executive would take a job without a contract. There's a reason for this.
huh? Only 6.4% of private sector employees belong to a union. The rest are at the mercy of their employers, not just for starting wage but for subsequent increases in wages or benefits.
Why should they have it all? Most rich off a poor man’s back
Classic Marxist thinking.
Self made rich people simply create wealth for themselves. And this wealth creation helps ALL. Apple makes the i-phone and makes gazillions of dollars from the sales. This causes an expansion of the wealth gap.
The poor Joe Blow gives his money to Apple for the i-phone. However, Joe Blow gets to improve his live-------------he thinks he is getting VALUE that is more than whatever was paid for the phone.
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.
The question should be why do many areas have horsesh#t schools?
Answer - the one size fits all limitations the Dept of Education puts on education. Just the extra layer of government makesthe running of schools costlier and inefficient.
Well the wealthy do pay significantly more property taxes than the middle class and below. It isn't unreasonable that the schools in the area where they live should reap the benefit of those taxes.
One thing I have learned is that simply dumping money into a school district won't change anything without parents actually doing their part. Too often that extra money is diverted into sports programs, pay raises and wasteful spending. The "it's free money" mentality takes over fast.
Well the wealthy do pay significantly more property taxes than the middle class and below. It isn't unreasonable that the schools in the area where they live should reap the benefit of those taxes.
so what if there are renters in the wealthy neighborhood, or a low rent apartment complex adjacent to the rich people's houses but in the school boundaries? Should the school district exclude those kids from attending the 'better school' and bus them to a school that is more in line with their wealth ? Geezus
huh? Only 6.4% of private sector employees belong to a union. The rest are at the mercy of their employers, not just for starting wage but for subsequent increases in wages or benefits.
And people wonder why just like the 90's the stock market is booming, yet the majority of us aren't feeling the benefits of it.
If we want a bigger piece of the pie we need to do a better job at fighting for it.
so what if there are renters in the wealthy neighborhood, or a low rent apartment complex adjacent to the rich people's houses but in the school boundaries? Should the school district exclude those kids from attending the 'better school' and bus them to a school that is more in line with their wealth ? Geezus
Never said anything of the kind. Can you show me where I did?
I did say the rich pay significantly more in property tax. Why shouldn't school districts where they live reap the benefits of that? No where did I say low income should be bused out of the school district. No where did I say anyone within that school district should be excluded.
What I am against is school taxes from a district being diverted to other school districts.
huh? Only 6.4% of private sector employees belong to a union. The rest are at the mercy of their employers, not just for starting wage but for subsequent increases in wages or benefits.
I detest my employer and job. Now down to 1.5 months before retirement. What I don't detest is my pay.
The Union has tried to get in where I work at least 3 times since I am there. Every time the Union admits that they won't be able to increase our pay and that our benefits are already about what they would negotiate for us.
Why would I pay union dues if it does nothing for me? The only folks who wanted the union were the under achievers. The slackers.
Not going to take time to read all the replies but i will say: the question really is simple. The better school districts attract teachers who want to teach and not play baby sitter for a bunch of kids who do not want to learn or who have had no direction from home. That plus better schools are usually associated with higher taxes and higher property prices. It isn't so much a matter or deserving as a fact of life.
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.
