![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWisconsin State Assemblyman Robin Vos lets us all know what he thinks of those taxpaying Wisconsin citizens who work in the public sector:
The reality is they haven’t had to pay for these things, they’re upset about doing it now, and the taxpayers are the ones who definitely understand this because they get it, they’ve been doing this in the private sector for years, it’s time we had the same thing happen in the public sector…The fact that my Democratic colleagues want to go back to the taxpayer and have them pay higher taxes because someone shouldn’t pay 12% towards their healthcare….We are standing with the taxpayers all across Wisconsin. It’s amazing the outpouring of support that we’ve been getting from the people outside the Capitol Square, the people who are in the reality of the world, not the place that we’re sitting.
Howard Dean does a very good job of refuting Kudlow and Vos’ fiction that the demonstrations are all about the cuts in benefits and not about the elimination of collective bargaining. The capper to this exchange, however, comes near the end of the segment, when a sign appears just over Vos’ shoulder on the right. Not the kind of thing Kudlow could choreograph.
It beautifully highlights the idiocy of Vos' fiction that the demonstrators are, in some fundamental way, less American than other Americans. Does he really think cops and teachers don't pay taxes, or “live in the reality of the world?”
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 21:54 (UTC)Raise taxes on people that can afford it and benefit greatly from a good educational system. Every cent that goes to a public school and public school teacher is a redistribution of wealth; these places don't make any money (directly, at least). So whether you pay a teacher very little or a lot, you are still taking money from people that have produced it to those that will not produce (directly). So arguments about who "deserves" that money are moot; either way it is a value judgement about how much of other people's money these people deserve.
why wouldn't you hire kids right out of college?
1) When kids right out of college did get hired, you could afford to be hire the best and brightest.
2) You could afford to hire people with experience in industry and the private sector that are highly qualified and also have the attributes that make a great teacher. This has everything to do with giving education the resources to compete with the private sector for talent.
thats just the price you pay for working on the back of the taxpayers. and furthermore, it takes a lot more skill, training, and education to become a brain surgeon.
See, that is fundamentally the reason we disagree. I see teachers as performing a vital function for every person in society. You see them as working on the backs of the taxpayers, the real producers.
Of course, a lot more goes into becoming a brain surgeon than a teacher. But the argument stands. Actually from what I hear, a lot of physicians jump out of military service as soon as their loan programs are up, leaving nurses practitioners and PAs to do a lot of the work. The reason is that they don't receive competitive compensation; I don't see why members of the military deserve lower-quality care simply by virtue of being in the public sector though. Likewise I don't see why public school children deserve lower-quality education simply by virtue of the fact that their teachers are in the public sector.
other professionals are not paid through taxes.
This is totally irrelevant. Unless you advocate a complete privatization of education in this country, schools will be funded through tax dollars in some way. So why would we punish teachers because of this fact?
Teachers do not get competitive compensation compared to the relative value of their work. This is why I brought in the brain surgeon analogy. If you paid brain surgeons the same amount as teachers get paid now, it would still be "good pay" but the question is "Compared to what?"
because we aren't mandated to pay those bonuses.
Right, and people can choose to vote for lawmakers that don't pay teachers competitive compensations. That is what I mean when I saw the electorate can hold them hostage, and why collective bargaining is necessary.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 22:05 (UTC)the people don't want to.
either way it is a value judgement about how much of other people's money these people deserve
yep, and most people view an average salary of 50K with a generous benefits package as sufficient.
you could afford to be hire the best and brightest.
the public sector will never be able to match the private sector in terms of salaries, because the public sector does not create profits. its a fools errand to even try.
You see them as working on the backs of the taxpayers, the real producers.
well yes, their paychecks and benefits are mandatory deductions from their earnings.
This is totally irrelevant.
no, its the reason that public sector employees are generally paid less.
Teachers do not get competitive compensation compared to the relative value of their work
who decides the relative value of their work?
to the relative value of their work
are you seriously comparing brain surgeons to teachers? thats just silly.
and people can choose to vote for lawmakers that don't pay teachers competitive compensations
of course, and if teachers don't think they are being compensated fairly, they don't have to do the work.
That is what I mean when I saw the electorate can hold them hostage, and why collective bargaining is necessary.
its absolutely pathetic that you would consider voters reducing a benefits package to teachers as "holding them hostage". the only people being held hostage are the voters, when unions usurp the democratic process. spare us the sob story.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 22:38 (UTC)This sort of makes me think you are not reading what I'm writing. Go back and take a look.
its absolutely pathetic that you would consider voters reducing a benefits package to teachers as "holding them hostage".
I am saying that without the power of collective bargaining, they could hold them hostage; your original assertion that I replied to was that teachers / public sector workers do not need unions. Sorry if it sounded like I meant that this particular instance means they are being held hostage.
the people don't want to.
Great. I'm saying the people are wrong in this instance, insofar as that is what they want. Do you ever see laws passed that you disagree with? Are you satisfied when people say "that is what the people want"?
who decides the relative value of their work?
No one definitely decides this, it is a collaboration between voters and lawmakers. You ask that question as if I am the only one making a judgement about the relative value of their work. Anyone who has any opinion on how much public school teachers should get paid is making a judgement about that, whether they know it or not.
they don't have to do the work.
But, as I explained several posts ago, someone will still have to teach those classes. If benefits are not good enough, higher-quality employees will leave and lower-quality ones will take their place.
the public sector will never be able to match the private sector in terms of salaries, because the public sector does not create profits. its a fools errand to even try.
The public sector creates a lot of profits, just indirectly. How much profit can a business make without police / firemen / teachers? The compensation system we have in place doesn't recognize this (and neither do you, apparently). If what you're saying is true, why don't we just pay all teachers $20,000 a year? It could save a lot of money and won't have any impact on education at all.
no, its the reason that public sector employees are generally paid less.
You've haven't presented any logic for why this should be the case.
well yes, their paychecks and benefits are mandatory deductions from their earnings.
How much of those paychecks are the result of a good education and well-enforced laws?
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 23:13 (UTC)how on earth could they hold them hostage? if they don't like the pay or benefits, they can find another job, or go to another state.
If benefits are not good enough, higher-quality employees will leave and lower-quality ones will take their place.
and if the community sees a decline in student performance, politicians can lobby for higher teacher pay. its not rocket science. the problem is, teacher pay and education funding have been increasing, without any measurable benefit to education.
why don't we just pay all teachers $20,000 a year? It could save a lot of money and won't have any impact on education at all.
because the value that the electorate puts on teachers is higher than 20K.
You've haven't presented any logic for why this should be the case.
because people are willing to pay more for goods and services in the private sector, and are less willing to pay taxes to a government bureaucracy that is seen as wasteful and out of touch.
How much of those paychecks are the result of a good education
very little, in regards to k-12 education.
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/11 02:56 (UTC)This is a circular argument. You're claiming that the electorate values teachers at X because they think they deserve that much. That is just a statement of fact, not a rationale or explanation for why people think that way.
how on earth could they hold them hostage? if they don't like the pay or benefits, they can find another job, or go to another state.
As far as taking people hostage, I'm talking specifically about pensions here.
because people are willing to pay more for goods and services in the private sector, and are less willing to pay taxes to a government bureaucracy that is seen as wasteful and out of touch.
That's fine, but when you only attract deadbeats into teaching, don't ask why our schools fail.
very little, in regards to k-12 education.
I'm pretty sure the ability to read and do basic math skills does more for the economy than any other two specific skills. Insofar as people can do these things, k-12 education gets (some of) the credit. Insofar as there are deficits, k-12 gets (some of) the blame. But you can't squeeze juice from a turnip, you know?
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/11 18:08 (UTC)you're asking why we don't pay teachers 20K and im telling you its because citizens put more value on teachers than that. why should i need to explain the rationale?
As far as taking people hostage, I'm talking specifically about pensions here.
so not being able to collectively bargain for pension benefits is being held hostage? spare us the drama.
but when you only attract deadbeats into teaching, don't ask why our schools fail.
schools are already failing, and teachers are paid quite well. so your argument is weak. if more money was the solution to education, we wouldn't have so many problems with it.
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/11 20:11 (UTC)Again, paid well compared to whom? Who do you want to attract into the teaching profession? The subtext here is that you might believe that teaching is not a skilled profession and doesn't require highly skilled individuals, so there is no point in paying top-dollar for highly qualified people. That's fine if that is your opinion, but just make it explicit.
so not being able to collectively bargain for pension benefits is being held hostage?
Being promised a pension that is then not delivered on is being held hostage. People usually go to jail for stealing pensions they promised to their employees, if they're caught at least.
why should i need to explain the rationale?
You're only presenting the proximate cause for these feelings, not the distal cause. If one values making rational decisions (insofar as that is ever possible), then one should explain their reasons for doing and feelings certain ways as fully as possible. You are just saying "they feel that way because they feel that way," which is the definition of a tautology.
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/11 21:44 (UTC)compared to the communities they serve in.
Who do you want to attract into the teaching profession?
people who are passionate about the profession.
there is no point in paying top-dollar for highly qualified people.
no, teachers should not be paid six figures.
Being promised a pension that is then not delivered on is being held hostage.
thats quite a liberal definition of being held hostage, and only serves to dramatize the issue. but you know whose really at fault? the politicians and union leaders who negotiated pensions for state workers that were totally out of line with most taxpayers. they should have seen this day coming.
You are just saying "they feel that way because they feel that way," which is the definition of a tautology.
im saying that market rate of teachers is higher than 20K. its not a touch concept.
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/11 22:09 (UTC)That is just another way of saying what you've already said, i.e., the same tautology. Saying "people are willing to pay X amount of money," or "the market rate is X" doesn't address the issue of why they think that product is worth X amount of money. If I am willing to pay $500 for a new PC but $1000 for a new Mac, it isn't enough to say "just because I think Macs are worth more," because the premise and conclusion of that argument are the same. You would have to describe why you think Macs are better computers than PCs for the argument to be meaningful.
Likewise, in the case of teachers, one would have to describe why they think teachers are worth X amount of money compared to a host of other things (whether they are funded by taxes or not, because presumably people might just prefer to not pay anything and use that money on something else in the private sector). I'm arguing that (some) people think that teachers should receive less compensation than, say, a newly graduated MBA because people don't value or understand education, or both. Why do you think it is the case that people don't have a problem with paying MBAs more than teachers? Remember that ultimately you pay for the salary of an MBA as well as a teachers'.
people who are passionate about the profession.
OK. Let's stop wasting so much money on paying doctors and nurses. We could halve their salaries. After all, they should be in it for the passion of helping others, and cutting their benefits couldn't possibly negatively affect the caliber of people that choose those careers. Do you see how that applies to this situation as well?
compared to the communities they serve in.
That isn't a meaningful comparison. Again, to use a physician analogy, if a doctor worked in a community where the median income is $20,000 but he earned $40,000, he would be "paid well" by your standard, but I don't think we would consider that to be a good salary for a doctor. Indeed, it would be difficult to convince anyone but the lowest-quality doctors to work in those areas (this is on average; of course there are exceptions and money is not the only motivating factor in human decision-making. I am focusing on it because the debate really is about money). In reality, that is precisely what happens. The logic extends to any skilled profession, especially those with special responsibilities.
(no subject)
Date: 22/2/11 01:07 (UTC)that is just the relative value that people place on the product. everyone has their own reasons. some probably place greater value, other less. you just don't like the answer.
You would have to describe why you think Macs are better computers than PCs for the argument to be meaningful.
what are we comparing teachers to? firefighters? policemen? because our tax dollars don't pay the salaries of MBA's.
Let's stop wasting so much money on paying doctors and nurses
feel free to lobby your congressperson on the matter.
Do you see how that applies to this situation as well?
sure, but the people of Wisconsin obviously don't see the benefits reductions being asked for as significant enough to materially effect the teaching profession.
Why do you think it is the case that people don't have a problem with paying MBAs more than teachers?
because private companies values an MBA more than taxpayers value a teacher certificate.
Remember that ultimately you pay for the salary of an MBA as well as a teachers'.
not necessarily. if i don't see value in a product, or a company, i don't do business with them. with taxes, you have no choice.
but I don't think we would consider that to be a good salary for a doctor.
teachers and doctors are not comparable professions. what is the cost of becoming a doctor compared to that of becoming a teacher? how much greater skill and intelligence is required in becoming a doctor? doctors make significantly more money than average because it requires significantly more intelligence, time, and money to become a doctor. and they provide a service which is significantly more difficult to do.
(no subject)
Date: 22/2/11 02:02 (UTC)No, but we pay their salaries nonetheless. Just as we have the choice to not buy particular products, we have the choice to vote in lawmakers that would cut compensation to teachers.
you just don't like the answer.
I think you are not interested in asking the question.
that is just the relative value that people place on the product.
sure, but the people of Wisconsin obviously don't see the benefits reductions being asked for as significant enough to materially effect the teaching profession.
Again, those are descriptive statements, not normative ones. Nobody disputes the basic facts of the situation, or at least I don't.
teachers and doctors are not comparable professions. what is the cost of becoming a doctor compared to that of becoming a teacher? how much greater skill and intelligence is required in becoming a doctor? doctors make significantly more money than average because it requires significantly more intelligence, time, and money to become a doctor. and they provide a service which is significantly more difficult to do.
You're arguing against a claim that I didn't make. All I'm saying is that the economic logic is exactly the same. As an aside, a lot of doctors don't make enough money either, and that causes the same kind of problems (i.e., a shortage of primary care physicians).
(no subject)
Date: 22/2/11 02:22 (UTC)as i said. we have a choice in which companies we want to do business with.
we have the choice to vote in lawmakers that would cut compensation to teachers.
we certainly do.
I think you are not interested in asking the question
i can't speak for the market.
Nobody disputes the basic facts of the situation
you seem to think whats happening in Wisconsin will lead to a material decline in the quality of teachers in the state. the voters of the state don't believe so. it appears to be a difference of opinion.
All I'm saying is that the economic logic is exactly the same.
sure, but its a matter of opinion. at what rate of pay and benefits will the quality of teachers be materially effected? there is no definitive answer. it is a question that voters have to ask themselves when they decide on salaries for public employees. and those kinds of decisions are made through the ballot box.