the taxpayers of wisconsin appear to have a different perspective on that.
You're appealing to the fact that Wisconsin voters have registered their opinion in an election quite a bit, but that is really completely irrelevant. I realize that voters have the right to make whatever decisions they want and set whatever priorities they want. I am just arguing that those decisions and priorities are wrong. Just because Wisconsin voters seem to have fallen for class-warfare demagoguery doesn't mean that they are correct.
of course there are. state governments have to compete with the private sector for employees.
Except that the demand for education stays constant regardless of the economic climate. There will still roughly be the same number of kids that need to go to school whether things are good or bad. So you have several choices (or a combination of the three):
1) lay-off teachers, thereby raising the number of kids per classroom 2) cut teacher compensation, thereby driving the more highly qualified teachers into the private sector. However, unlike in a private company where a person gets let go because there is no useful work for him or her to do for the company during an economic downturn, the amount of productive work necessary in a school has not changed. That means you have to hire lower-quality employees to fill the jobs that people who flee to the private sector have abandoned. That is the difference. 3) Run a deficit, raise taxes, or cut something else
so if you want teachers to contribute to their retirement and pay a portion of their health care costs you don't appreciate their work? spare us the drama.
1) Public sector employees do not get more pay than private sector ones when education level is accounted for: http://www.slge.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={22748FDE-C3B8-4E10-83D0-959386E5C1A4}&DE={BD1EB9E6-79DA-42C7-A47E-5D4FA1280C0B}
2) Even if they did get a better deal, these people have been told that they would be treated a certain way for all this time. It isn't fair to change the rules of the game half-way through.
3) Superior compensation nets superior employees. If you want amazing teachers, offer $100,000 a year to start. We don't offer that (or anything like it) because we as a society don't value education.
your definition of abuse appears to be quite liberal.
Actually, this was in response to your contention that not being able to unionize would not leave public sector employees vulnerable to abuse (a claim which you haven't actually defended, except to say that they can beg the electorate for better treatment). It wasn't referring to the current situation.
your entrusting the future of your country to the whims of a bunch of infallible human beings.
Nah, that's just any form of government (or any form of life, for that matter), at least until killer robots take over. A liberal democracy has rule of law and checks and balances that make it the least whimsical of all forms of government, all other things being equal.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 05:37 (UTC)You're appealing to the fact that Wisconsin voters have registered their opinion in an election quite a bit, but that is really completely irrelevant. I realize that voters have the right to make whatever decisions they want and set whatever priorities they want. I am just arguing that those decisions and priorities are wrong. Just because Wisconsin voters seem to have fallen for class-warfare demagoguery doesn't mean that they are correct.
of course there are. state governments have to compete with the private sector for employees.
Except that the demand for education stays constant regardless of the economic climate. There will still roughly be the same number of kids that need to go to school whether things are good or bad. So you have several choices (or a combination of the three):
1) lay-off teachers, thereby raising the number of kids per classroom
2) cut teacher compensation, thereby driving the more highly qualified teachers into the private sector. However, unlike in a private company where a person gets let go because there is no useful work for him or her to do for the company during an economic downturn, the amount of productive work necessary in a school has not changed. That means you have to hire lower-quality employees to fill the jobs that people who flee to the private sector have abandoned. That is the difference.
3) Run a deficit, raise taxes, or cut something else
so if you want teachers to contribute to their retirement and pay a portion of their health care costs you don't appreciate their work? spare us the drama.
1) Public sector employees do not get more pay than private sector ones when education level is accounted for: http://www.slge.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={22748FDE-C3B8-4E10-83D0-959386E5C1A4}&DE={BD1EB9E6-79DA-42C7-A47E-5D4FA1280C0B}
2) Even if they did get a better deal, these people have been told that they would be treated a certain way for all this time. It isn't fair to change the rules of the game half-way through.
3) Superior compensation nets superior employees. If you want amazing teachers, offer $100,000 a year to start. We don't offer that (or anything like it) because we as a society don't value education.
your definition of abuse appears to be quite liberal.
Actually, this was in response to your contention that not being able to unionize would not leave public sector employees vulnerable to abuse (a claim which you haven't actually defended, except to say that they can beg the electorate for better treatment). It wasn't referring to the current situation.
your entrusting the future of your country to the whims of a bunch of infallible human beings.
Nah, that's just any form of government (or any form of life, for that matter), at least until killer robots take over. A liberal democracy has rule of law and checks and balances that make it the least whimsical of all forms of government, all other things being equal.