and people are forced to teach in public schools? who knew?!
Someone has to do it; we need X number of teachers to fulfill out educational requirements, and if you lower compensation you'll hemorrhage good employees, and those spots will be taken by low-quality ones. You can give competitive compensation and get high-quality people, or you can offer poor compensation and get low-quality people. There are no free lunches.
the teachers union just skims of the paychecks and gets in the way of education.
You've managed to totally ignore my argument while being kind of snarky for no real reason. I didn't say there isn't corruption in the unions. I'm saying that some form of collective bargaining is necessary for public sector employees because there are no market forces to protect them. Their well-being has little to do with supply and demand and everything to do with how much lawmakers decide to give them. Do you have an opinion on that?
if they are strapped for cash, they're going to lay off teachers.
It's a question of priorities. Why are tax cuts placed ahead of education?
and by golly they can't work in the private sector.
Like I said, there are X number of people that need to work in the government for it work properly. You can either attract good employees or bad ones.
its called the electorate. ever heard of it?
Exactly my point. I'd rather not see public employees abused by an electorate that doesn't appreciate or understand the value of their work, or would rather plunder their compensation for a tax break.
democracy is a leap of faith.
Democracy doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There are all sorts of institutions and norms that form a foundation, without which a democracy wouldn't function. It's anything but a leap of faith.
no subject
Someone has to do it; we need X number of teachers to fulfill out educational requirements, and if you lower compensation you'll hemorrhage good employees, and those spots will be taken by low-quality ones. You can give competitive compensation and get high-quality people, or you can offer poor compensation and get low-quality people. There are no free lunches.
the teachers union just skims of the paychecks and gets in the way of education.
You've managed to totally ignore my argument while being kind of snarky for no real reason. I didn't say there isn't corruption in the unions. I'm saying that some form of collective bargaining is necessary for public sector employees because there are no market forces to protect them. Their well-being has little to do with supply and demand and everything to do with how much lawmakers decide to give them. Do you have an opinion on that?
if they are strapped for cash, they're going to lay off teachers.
It's a question of priorities. Why are tax cuts placed ahead of education?
and by golly they can't work in the private sector.
Like I said, there are X number of people that need to work in the government for it work properly. You can either attract good employees or bad ones.
its called the electorate. ever heard of it?
Exactly my point. I'd rather not see public employees abused by an electorate that doesn't appreciate or understand the value of their work, or would rather plunder their compensation for a tax break.
democracy is a leap of faith.
Democracy doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There are all sorts of institutions and norms that form a foundation, without which a democracy wouldn't function. It's anything but a leap of faith.